Introduction

In our current society where the Internet is so important and plays such a crucial role in everyday life, it seems only logical that we address the possibility of using the Internet’s technology to ease the electoral process. With the fiasco that was the 2000 presidential election, it would seem ridiculous to embark on any type of voting process that was not absolutely flawless. Thus, the thought of an Internet voting system is being met with a great amount of trepidation. But, it must be remembered that the Internet itself was also met with concern for its validity and security. So it would be wise for everyone involved to not dismiss the concept of Internet voting without at least considering its potential

The 2000 Presidential election voting mishaps in Florida caused an enthusiastic search for new and innovative voting methods. Florida’s “outdated” voting methods and equipment left the world waiting in suspense as the election votes were counted, re-counted, and further re-counted. Following the results of the re-counts, Florida officials stated they would examine their current balloting system. One concept, not just in Florida, but throughout the United States, has been the consideration of Internet voting. It is important in our society where the Internet is such a significant part and plays a crucial role in everyday life, that it is necessary to assess the possibility of utilizing the world wide web to reduce the stress that develops during political elections. With the vast success of the Internet and its predecessors, it would be wise to consider the possibilities of using the services of the Internet to facilitate the voting process.

But, many people would argue that Internet voting is unnecessary and wasteful because of the success of the current voting system. But, in light of the last presidential election, our current system is not devoid of failures. In response to these “failures”, supporters of Internet voting would argue that their methods could help eliminate those failures. They feel that Internet voting could eliminate those failures and controversies such as the “dimpled chad” debacle of the 2000 election. These types of elections would utilize poll sites just as current election sites do. But, Internet elections would help to reduce and maybe even eliminate human error. Computers possess traits such as speed, reliability, and impartiality that may not exist in elections where a person actually counts votes. Even in cases where computers or machines are already used to tally votes, there are problems that have developed. In Florida, where the devices that resemble scantron machines were used to count the ballots. But, these types of voting devices possess flaws that do not exist with an Internet type election. The flaw occurred when the machines were unable to interpret a ballot card that did not have fully punched holes. This required people to have to hand-count the ballot cards in a process that seemingly took ages. There is no “room for error” in an Internet election. A computer key is either pressed or not pressed. There is no in-between or debate when a ballot is completed via a web browser or computer system.

Internet voting is the term used to describe a type of voting process that would allow potential voters to cast a secure and secret electronic ballot over the Internet. The California Internet Voting Task Force, under California’s Secretary of State, Bill Jones, states that voters could initially begin using Internet voting at traditional polling facilities and would then gradually vote electronically from remote places, such as an Internet voting kiosk or the voter’s home or office (California). The Internet voting polling place would be staffed by election officials that assist in authenticating voter identification. While Internet voting polling places would be similar to the existing polling operations, remote Internet voting, which is unsupervised use of the Internet Voting machine to cast a ballot over the internet using a privately owned computers. This would require web pages or databases capable of recording votes while ensuring that voting regulations established in the Constitution are maintained, a paramount level of security of the secrecy of the ballot and protection from all fraudulent exploits. Other qualifying factors of Internet voting are the usefulness, desire, voter turnout, and availability of the Internet and computers as so described in the digital divide dilemma (California).

Pros and Cons of Internet Voting:

Internet voting could offer an array of pros despite the technological improvements and requirements needed for the implementation of a new voting process. Voting via the Internet would greatly reduce the amount of time spent waiting in line to cast a vote. Long lines would no longer be a deterrent for voting, as citizens may choose to vote from the comfort of home or work. The amount of time used to tally the votes would also greatly decrease since votes would be stored and automatically counted. Hand counts would no longer be necessary, allowing for a faster and more accurate count. More substantially, Internet voting offers convenience to the general public. Voters are not confined to traditional and time consuming polling practices. Public and election officials are confident that Internet voting will lead to an increase in voter turnout, which is at its lowest in decades (Voter Integrity Project). The notion of less time spent and the attractiveness of Internet voting has given extensive support for this updated balloting system.

Another pro that would be created because of the technological advances brought to light through Internet elections is the efficiency and reliability with which all ballots could be counted. In the current system, absentee ballots are usually mail-in forms that are not counted until after the main election results have been tallied. This is because the time it takes for these ballots to be counted. The process is very labor intensive and very taxing on those involved in the process. There are also many logistical problems with absentee ballots. For example, absentee ballots must be mailed to a specific location determined by the voter’s district designation. These extra steps increase the chances of some sort of system failure. A ballot could be lost in the mail or it could be sent to the wrong polling site. These type of problems plague the current election system. There have been alternatives to this type of ballot counting that have been tried because of the vast amount of problems with tallying absentee ballots. In Oregon, the voting districts tried to use the phone system to log absentee ballots in the 2000 election (Voter Integrity Project). Many of us can remember that Oregon was one of the last states to actually present election results because of this new system. Due to all the problems that developed and the allegations that the telephone elections were rigged, the election results not only took a tremendous amount of time to be processed, but were then contested once they were released. It is the hope of many that Internet elections can provide another alternative that would be much more efficient. By allowing people to vote via the Internet, there would be no need for the large number of absentee ballots that exist now and the efficiency of the overall process would be improved.

It is also thought by some that the expense of Internet voting would be considerable. But, in fact, exactly the opposite is true. While there would be some initial start-up costs for the technology involved, the overall cost of Internet voting would be less than the current format. Much of this technology already exists and is being used in private elections and, as will be discussed later, has been used in some public elections. Under the current format, elections cost a considerable amount of money much of which is covered by citizens tax dollars. Anyone who has voted has been put through the great ordeal that surrounds the entire process. The registration process alone requires notification to be sent by mail and the printing of extensive forms with every voter’s registration information. These types of forms are necessary to ensure the security of these elections, but they are still very costly. With Internet voting, the costs would be greatly reduced. The registration process and check-in would all be facilitated through a web browser form. This would also help to decrease the amount of arduous work that is required to run an election polling site.

Since the outcry began for new balloting systems or Internet voting, 12 states have actually tried holding elections online. One notable election took place in March, 2000 in Arizona. The Arizona Democratic Presidential Primary has been the subject of a long standing controversy. It was the first legally binding election in the United States to use Internet voting. The Voting Integrity Project (VIP), a non-profit public interest organization, has filed suit against Arizona alleging the election violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (Voter Integrity Project). The Fifthteenth Amendment of the Constitution, under section 1 states, “The rights of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Constitution made it a level field for all voters to vote trying to bridge socio-economic, racial, and cultural divides.

There is a great digital divide in Arizona, causing Internet voting to be a concern. During the time of the election white registered Democrats accounted for 57% of the electorate, but accounted for 83% of the state’s home Internet users. Latinos were 21% of the voters and 10% of home Internet users, while Native Americans held 19% of the votes and less than 1% of home Internet users (Voter Integrity Project). For this reason the Voting Integrity Project (VIP) felt it was unconstitutional of Arizona to allow this type of election process, arguing it favored mostly White home Internet users and devaluing the minority vote. VIP also bought to light the issue of Federal pre-clearance for election changes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 calls for Arizona and 15 other states to be granted permission for such changes. The Voting Right Project also addressed the Americans with Disabilities Act. VIP claimed the election website was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations because it prohibited blind persons from remotely voting. The presiding judge personally agreed with the Voting Integrity Project’s arguments that Internet voting would “result in racial discrimination in this election,” but ruled to let the election go forward stating the results could be thrown out later (Voter Integrity Project).

The major concern is that once Internet voting is placed outside of the election officials controlled environment that election outcomes will be biased towards the population with Internet access. According to the US Department of Commerce, Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide, elections would be heavily directed toward the educated and wealthy. Thus causing a large shift of greater political participation in metro versus rural regions and more technological regions. The argument is widely based on the number of minority groups who do not have access to the Internet as compared to the White families with Internet access. The Department of Commerce reported in 1999 that only 8% of African Americans and 9% of Hispanics have access from any location, including home, work, school, or library. On the other side of the divide, 21% of White households have access (California). The California Internet Voting Task Force addressed this problem by suggesting that publicly accessible computers be placed in facilities, therefore providing Internet access for voting by those who would otherwise not have access to an Internet connection.

The problem with the task force proposal is that facilities such as public libraries, housing centers, schools, job centers, and National Guard Centers, all have or will soon be readied with computers with Internet access, but are not all considered appropriate as polling places by officials. Approved polling sites have been located normally in neighborhood garages, school cafeterias and school gymnasiums, and these areas rarely have Internet access. Another proposal was to purchase computers that could be used by the different counties throughout the year. The computers would be reserved for voting on election days, unlike the traditional voting machines that are only used one day a year and stored the rest. The question than becomes, which government agencies would give up the computers or fund the purchase of the computers to be placed in the numerous polling sites? Once voting regulations are consistent with the Constitution there needs to be a consistent level of voter secrecy or anonymity.

Whitfield Diffie, a legendary cryptographer, explained the necessary guidelines for a secure election. He went on to construe how the state’s online election voted ballots must be “encrypted and digitally signed to ensure both their secrecy and integrity. In online elections local computation means that the Internet user’s browser must support cryptographic functions and big number arithmetic (Adler)”. This poses a problem since

elections must be available to the widest group of voters, no matter the configuration of their browser. And not all browsers support cryptographic functions and, therefore, cannot be guaranteed to adequately protect ballot secrecy. Diffie, at the 2000 Computer, Freedom, and Privacy Conference said there is a “trade-off between widespread browser compatibility and election security (Adler).” Therefore leaving three scenarios for voter secrecy in online voting; 1. elections with no ballot protection, which is supported by all browsers, 2. elections with ballot protection over the Internet, supported by most browsers, and 3. elections with ballot protection through local cryptography, supported by few browsers.

The no ballot protection model is good in that it supports any browser only requiring a simple HTML form. However this model is not capable of cryptographic computation. This no encryption model is susceptible to any and all invasion whether at the voter’s home machine, traveling through the Internet, or at the final destination. Elections with ballot protection offer a great deal more protection than model 1, but are still prone to attacks. This model uses SSL protocol. The SSL encrypts, authenticates, and signs data between the server and browser. Nonetheless, when the data reaches the web server it is delivered in an unencrypted form, making it prone to attacks. Browsers such as Netscape and Microsoft protect against most codes and modifications, but lesser known browsers may not support protection protocols such as SSL. Elections with ballot protection would offer the most protection, but would not be available to all voters. These ballots would be fraud free and secret because they are encrypted and digitally signed at the browser. However, only mainstream browsers can support this through the use of plug-ins and active controls. Again, these interfaces are available through browsers such as Netscape and Microsoft, but are not supported by Lynx, Opera, etc. The trade-off between accessibility and privacy, factoring in system compatibility is a significant obstacle in the Internet voting controversy. Nonetheless, critics and supporters both mull over whether Internet voting would be secure.

As with any online activity comes the possible threat of criminal attacks, most commonly viruses and modifying codes. Internet voting would cause a shift in control from election officials to those with technical expertise. Currently, state and federal laws to not offer enough protection against election integrity. This allows for automate vote fraud through programming attacks. Remote Internet voting gives way to a more significant shift in control towards the voter. Following a large number of fraud problems and the National Voter Registration Act the DBT performs routine data matching of voter logs against the National Change of Address list. Still there are over 150,000 duplicate and fraudulent registrations. The use of the Internet may make it easier to duplicate voters or even evade duplication by differing names by only one letter.

Absentee ballots would be another easy form of Internet voting fraud. Since Internet voting would require no physical signature it would be almost impossible to detect absentee voter registration. Last year alone, 40,000 social security numbers were stolen over the Internet (Voter Integrity Project). This is why Internet security is such an important issue. Internet voting might possible assist in election fraud. Voter registration is not recommended over the Internet for this reason. One solution to this problem is the cross referencing of public data bases, but Americans have been resistant to national data systems and national identification systems, regardless if they are stored on the Internet or not. Another threat involving Internet voting is that of foreign governments. According to the Voter Integrity Project half of the people surfing the Internet are outside of the United States. This is important because terrorist have been known to use the Internet for terrorist or welfare purposes. Who’s to say a country would not manipulate or interfere with a United States election to further their own cause. Internet vendors say these breaches would not happen because their systems are secure. However they have yet to allow third or independent parties to test their systems.

Any attack against the system could prevent voters from accessing an Internet election site, such as a virus that would crash the entire site. As was the case in Arizona. The system was heavily loaded causing voters to be timed out or frustrated with timely connections (Adler). Critics are most concerned with the “Trojan Horse” vulnerability, which may go undetected by voters, vendors, and officials. Some viruses may be installed and remain silent until an opportune time. Also some viruses may go undetected for lengthy periods because they modify their own code and can resist correction if detected. For example, a virus could wait until the cryptology is open allowing the voter to cast his vote, but the virus may change it before the vote is actually cast. Thus making the voter think he voted for one candidate, when in actuality he voted for the opponent. Election officials and vendors would not be able to detect this invasion. Just like the Love Bug virus infected 45 million computers and cost 8 billion in damages, a virus of an election site could cause just as much, if not more damage. This is definitely possible in a remote voting system because the home computer is the most insecure part of the remote voting system. Most Internet users are not aware of computer security issues, maintenance, and viruses. Before remote Internet voting may be initiated election officials must be prepared to educate voters, provide for updated software, Internet assistance and online help.

One possibility that is being explored with regards to remote site Internet voting is the development of a new device called the “eSlate” (Hart Intercivic website). This is a device that has been created by Hart Intercivic in an effort to solve some of the current election problems. This device closely resembles a “Palm Pilot” but its sole function is to record an individuals vote. The eSlate is programmed to store election results under a code number that is specific to an individual person. Election information and lists of candidates are made available through software that is produced and distributed to everyone with an eSlate. The results of a person’s ballot can then be transmitted to the proper election authorities via the Internet. This system can help to solve the security problems because it utilizes software that can be used only on time by the person who has the appropriate pin number or code. These devices can be distributed to individual households and then used by everyone in the household by having each person load their own individual cards and cast their vote. While this technology has not yet been used for public elections, it could be made available with the development of Internet voting software.

In addition to the technological benefits of Internet voting, there are other implications that would seem to make Internet voting desirable. There are several “social science” issues that are involved in a change in the voting process. Currently, there is a major problem in the number of people who actually vote in our country’s elections. The low voter turnout at polling sites is a source of great concern for politicians who are searching for ways to improve the election process. Ironically, the demographic group with the lowest voter turnout is also the group that uses the Internet the most. High-School and college students use the Internet more often than any other age group. But, coincidentally, this age group is the one that votes the least. Thus, it can be hypothesized that an Internet election process might increase voter turn-out of the younger people. But this does not solely pertain to young people. Most people who do not choose to vote do so because of the inconvenience of the entire process. There are polling sites where people have waited hours because of the arduous process involved in polling elections. Many people do not feel that their singular vote in important enough to devote so much time to. But, Internet voting could bring these people out to vote. With the process simplified so that it is convenient, then people may be more willing to cast their vote. Or, having the option of voting from any available computer could increase voter convenience, thus creating the possibility of more voters.

The availability of Internet voting could, however, create a decline in the sense of community that is created by “going to the polls”. Those opposed to Internet voting argue that the community type interaction that develops would decline with people voting from their homes. They argue that this type of interaction is a necessary facet of the US social structure. But, it is necessary to weigh the supposed loss of community against the possible increase in voters caused by Internet voting. Would it be more beneficial to have a smaller amount of people talking for hours at polls or a larger number of people casting the only thing that really matters...their vote. It should also be noted that the existence of Internet voting does not mean that the entire election process will be held at home. Internet voting can still be used at community locations in the same manner that election booths are used now. There is no way to validate claims that voting over the Internet would cause a decline in the perceived civic equality of the voting populous.

The benefits of Internet voting seem to be numerous as do the problems that could develop. However, as listed in the “Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting”, the possibilities of Internet voting are much more extensive that those of the current process. With Internet voting, once a person casts a vote in their district, their information could be coded and stored. This person would then have the ability to vote anywhere in the state, or maybe even the country. This would enable many more people to vote conveniently, like college students who cannot return to their district to vote. Overall, this type of system brings with it a sense of versatility that in not available in the current system. This would increase the number of people who spend the time necessary to vote. By increasing voter turnout, the election process could be improved.

This type of voting process could also lead to the many benefits of “Kiosk” voting that was previously mentioned. With the ability to place voting terminals anywhere, there would be a greater number of people with access to a voting venue. These kiosks act in the same fashion as the ATM of a bank. They would retain the necessary voter registration information allowing people to vote in an area other than their assigned district. These kiosks could also be used to provide those without the ability to leave their residence with an easier method to vote. For instance, a kiosk could be set up at military bases, both domestically and overseas. This would allow active duty military personnel to vote easily. These kiosks could also be used in nursing homes or hospitals to make the voting process easier for those who are confined to their location. It is fairly obvious that this type of voting could alter the current election process or even create a security risk. That is why it would be vital to ensure that Internet poll sites are safe and flawless before kiosk voting could be utilized.

Conclusion:

The concept of voting by using the Internet is still just an idea. But, it is an idea that is gaining momentum at a great rate. Many people do not think it is possible to run this system efficiently without security flaws and concerns. But, these same people also thought that it would be impossible to purchase items over the Internet using their credit card. While the Internet purchasing system is not flawless, it is progressing. It would be impossible to design a system that works perfectly the first time out of the blocks. This is what has happened with the security issues surrounding online buying and it will probably happen with online voting. But, that should not be enough to discourage the pursuit of Internet voting. It is easy to see that, with time, online voting could become both reliable and necessary much like the Internet itself today.