benefits of computer technology in election essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

It’s Time for Online Voting

Using blockchain technology, online voting could boost voter participation and help restore the public’s trust in the electoral process and democracy.

By Alex Tapscott

Mr. Tapscott is Co-Founder of the Blockchain Research Institute.

Messing with polling stations is one of the most common voter suppression tactics. Across the country, polling stations have been closed in minority neighborhoods , had their locations changed from election to election, and have been kept understaffed , or inaccessible , or ill-equipped , so that voters must stand in line for hours.

These tactics work to lower voter turnout and undermine confidence in the electoral process. In the 2016 election, only 55.4 percent of eligible voters actually voted — one of the lowest turnouts in two decades. In the same year, only 29 percent of Americans were very confident that the ballots cast nationwide would be counted as intended, and only two-thirds of Americans were very confident that their own ballot would be counted as intended. Our democracy depends on addressing these vulnerabilities. The more that eligible voters participate in elections and the more transparent and durable the process, the more legitimate the outcome. Fortunately, a simple solution to the problem exists, if we allow citizens to vote online using their smartphone or home computer.

Online voting isn’t a silver bullet. It wouldn’t thwart political disinformation campaigns that rely on false tweets or bogus Facebook pages, and it wouldn’t be a solution to the problems presented by gerrymandering. However, done properly, online voting could boost voter participation, avoid administrative errors at polling stations, and help restore the public’s trust in the electoral process and democracy.

Until now, the internet as we know it has generally failed to meet basic voting system requirements: A vote must be cast and counted for the intended candidate, counted only once, remain anonymous, and be verifiable after the fact, even amid a power outage.

The key weakness of early online voting systems was the inability to solve what cryptographers called the “ double spend problem .” When we send a file on the internet, we’re actually sending a copy of that file; the original remains in our possession. This is acceptable for sharing information but unacceptable for recording votes in elections. The possibility that individuals could cast their ballots multiple times for a candidate made these systems useless — just as vulnerable as paper ballot systems. Points of failure included susceptibility to hackers, coding bugs, and human error. With enough resources, any rogue could “stuff” a digital ballot box with illegitimate votes.

The good news is that building a workable, scalable, and inclusive online voting system is now possible, thanks to blockchain technologies. A blockchain is a peer-to-peer network for exchanging anything of value, from stocks, money, intellectual property, and, yes, votes. In a blockchain-based system, public trust in the voting process is achieved not by faith in one single institution, but through cryptography, code, and collaboration among citizens, government agencies, and other stakeholders.

Traditionally in elections, trust is concentrated in the hands of state and federal agencies and other civic institutions, which are prone to hacking, fraud, or human error (think the Democratic National Committee , the Election Assistance Commission , or the California Department of Motor Vehicles ). On a blockchain, a distributed network of computers works to verify transactions, with batches of them ordered and recorded in blocks. Each block is linked cryptographically to the preceding block, forming a secure chain or ledger that anyone in the network can see but no single entity can hack or manipulate.

An attacker who wanted to spend the same dollar twice or cast the same vote twice would need to take command of 51% of the computers in the network simultaneously and rewrite the entire history of each dollar or vote on the blockchain in a short time frame, which is exceedingly difficult. Since the network is widely distributed, it could survive a natural disaster or an attack on critical infrastructure. Thus, blockchain prevents double-spending, enabling us to run secure, trustworthy online transactions including voting.

In elections run on blockchains, citizens use digital voter IDs to prove who they are. Each digital ID is unique to each person, cryptographically secured with a private key (a unique password) on the person’s device, and made up of multiple data points, or factors: proofs of residence and citizenship, biometric data, and voter registration, to name a few. Citizens open their app with their thumbprints or retinal scans and then cast their vote with their private key. The more data points used to create the digital ID, the harder the identity is to replicate and hack. Though voter registration is still required in most states, a robust multi-factor voter ID could eventually replace the registration altogether, as the combination of many data points would make it highly reliable.

As citizens, we can trust the outcome of such a voting system: voters can check the blockchain to verify that their vote was counted correctly, candidates can trust the vote count and election officials can verify and audit the results. Because the system is decentralized, no government or hacker can change the results without immediate detection.

Hackers could still attempt to steal votes — but they’d have to do so one voter at a time, since there is no centralized database to hack — and they couldn’t recast those votes without the corresponding secure voter ID. And, because of the clear chain of custody, citizens could prove that their voting tokens had been stolen. The downside of voting over a blockchain is limited to a delay in the process; to address this, governments could grant each citizen a backup voting token as an added precaution. Blockchain voting achieves privacy for the individual and improves transparency for the system as a whole. Voting systems will be less costly, more efficient, and more accessible while eliminating most, if not all, opportunities for suppression, fraud, or sham charges of fraud. To be fully inclusive and ensure that citizens who lack internet access can still vote, paper ballots can remain an alternative.

Several start-ups such as Follow My Vote and Voatz are developing blockchain-based solutions for online voting. At the Blockchain Research Institute, we studied the Cleveland-based Votem. Its clients, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the National Radio Hall of Fame, deployed Votem’s mobile voting applications successfully in selecting inductees. Votem authenticated each voter’s identity, provided a chain of custody, and proved itself fast, secure, auditable, and convenient.

Absentee ballots offer a perfect test for blockchain-based mobile voting in government. This is no small matter: Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters live or serve overseas every election, and they face high hurdles to democratic participation. They must remember to vote early, because tens of thousands of absentee ballots arrive too late to be counted. Concerns over security and anonymity decrease online submissions, even when they’re available.

Online voting is not without challenges: Technical standards must be consistent across jurisdictions, and software and hardware would need to be audited regularly. The early days of blockchain-based voting would have growing pains, and election boards would need to test solutions at local and state levels before a national rollout.

West Virginia has built a mobile voting app for absentee voters in the midterm elections. West Virginians serving in the military and their families have already begun casting their ballots through a blockchain-based app on their phone. This makes voting much easier, boosts the trust voters have in the security of the process, and reduces the number of rejected ballots.

There is no shortage of politicians in power who benefit from the inaccessibility, insecurity, or lack of public faith in the electoral process. They have every reason to cast doubt upon, or outright oppose, an improvement in the way elections are run. But with the benefits of blockchain-based online voting so clear, citizens should insist that voters’ interests come first.

Alex Tapscott is Co-Founder of the Blockchain Research Institute and a former member of the Elections Canada Advisory Board.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

American Trust in Voting Technology

By Holly Ann Garnett and Pam Simpson 07.12.2019

https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/american-trust-voting-technology

How does the use of electoral technology at the voting booth impact voters’ trust in the electoral process?

Proposed relationship.

The  MIT Election Data and Science Lab  helps highlight new research and interesting ideas in election science, and is a proud co-sponsor of the  Election Sciences, Reform, & Administration Conference  (ESRA).

Holly Ann Garnett and Pam Simpson recently presented a paper at the 2019 ESRA conference entitled, “ American Trust in Voting Technology .” Here, they summarize their analysis from that paper.

While technology is used throughout the electoral cycle, for everything from voter registration to announcing the results, the voter most intimately experience the use of technology in elections through their experience at the ballot box, with the use of direct recording electronic voting mechanisms, optical scanning machines or other forms of e-voting technology.

Our working paper seeks to provide evidence on the impact of these technologies on voter trust, by considering the use of technology in in-person voting in the United States. The American experience is particularly useful to study since the technology used at the polls varies widely between American counties, due to a de-centralized system of election administration.

Note: Only selected technologies depicted. Data from  Election Data Services  for their Election Official and Voter Equipment Reporting database. Note that there was conflicting information for some counties. These counties were therefore not included in the analysis. Work is ongoing to resolve these discrepancies.

Taking advantage of the differences in electoral technology used between and within state, this paper considers the impact of voting technology on citizen trust in American elections.

We measure trust using three survey questions following the 2014 and 2016 American elections (data from the Survey on the Performance of American Elections). These questions are:

• How confident are you that your vote in the General Election was counted as you intended?
• How often do you think the following occurs: Officials changing the reported vote count in a way that is not a true reflection of the ballots that were actually counted?
• How much of a problem do you believe computer hacking was locally in the administration of elections in 2016?

The results broadly demonstrate that, in the 2014 and 2016 American elections, voters who used electronic voting machines tended to have lower trust in the confidence of their vote, lower trust that electoral officials would not change the results, and lower trust that electoral systems would not be hacked. However, at the same time, these voters had hardly any distinguishable differences in trust in the vote or hacking of election administration nation-wide, suggesting that the use of electronic voting machines at the polls may, in fact, play a role in their lower trust in the electoral process.

Take the threat of hacking, for example. Those who used electronic voting technology were more concerned about hacking at the local (but not the national) level.

The implications of this finding are important for those seeking to improve public confidence in elections, including policymakers and election administrators. The experience of voting on a machine appears to be linked to voters having less trust in their vote, electoral officials and the security of electoral infrastructure. Thus, the push for a move from technology to ‘paper ballots’ in order to improve voter trust may find support in the results of this paper. However, research is ongoing to further explore this question and provide additional robustness checks for these results.

Authors’ Note: Please note that this paper is a work-in-progress, and while we are excited to share our preliminary analysis, we encourage those interested in this research to check back over the coming months for further refined analysis.

Holly Ann Garnett is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Royal Military College of Canada.

Pam Simpson is a research assistant at the Royal Military College of Canada.

Back to Main

Related Articles

New Report: How We Voted in 2022

By Claire DeSoi

News coverage that shows long voting lines may discourage people from voting

By Kathleen Searles and Christopher Mann

The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics Essay

Daily advancements in technology meant that it was only a matter of time until people could vote online. Electronic voting, also known as e-voting, is a type of machine-mediated voting in which electors select candidates using a computer technology (Ottoboni & Stark, 2019). While some may find online casting questionable, this computerized approach is more trustworthy than using vote containers in elections, especially national elections. A modern man should be receptive to the revolutionary technologies and opportunities that electronic voting can deliver to multitudes of people in the United States and throughout the globe (Germann & Serdült, 2017). Although an online voting system has only been accessible to the public for a few years, it has the potential to significantly alter the election process in the future. As a result, this essay deconstructs some of the characteristics of online polling to demonstrate its significance.

Accessibility and Easy to Use

Electronic polling is available via various devices, including handsets, computers, and desktops, simplifying the voting procedure to a single click or touch on a touchscreen. As a result, voting can be monitored from any location (Adekunle, 2020). The days of spending a whole meeting attempting to determine a day when everybody would be in attendance for the election are over. For instance, if some citizens are on holiday, they can quickly enter the software from their beach chair and vote. As a result, this is also incredibly advantageous for a country with a vast population and with whom its people are located around the globe. Additionally, electronic voting alleviates the complexity of locating and renting several polling locations and the cost of a substantial percentage of mail votes (Adekunle, 2020). During voting sessions, all individuals may vote from the convenience of their homes. If a person has a connection to the desktop, smartphone, tablet, and wireless or other Internet connectivity, online voting is simplified.

A ballot can be submitted with the press of a button, which is why this casting mode is so tempting to individuals with impairments; it allows autonomy. Citizens can make their selections whenever they choose, throughout the election period, and from any location, they wish, without requiring help (Adekunle, 2020). As a result, this presupposes that the person in consideration has an internet connection via a gadget they very certainly use daily. Finally, disabled or disadvantaged voters can use specialized software on their equipment to aid them in utilizing the internet (Johnson & Powell, 2020). One such application is the screen reading program, enabling users to comprehend what is displayed precisely (Johnson & Powell, 2020). Due to the generic nature of such technology, it would have no way of knowing if the knowledge displayed was correlated to elections, therefore processing it identically to other webpages material and lowering the danger of harmful conduct.

Minimized Voting Costs

Digital casting has been heralded as a game-changer in races since it can be considered the breakthrough application for eliminating one of the problems limiting democratic turnout: the expense of voting itself. There are several intrinsic expenses, one of which is the cost of voting itself. In other nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, these expenditures include incorporating polling into a conventional weekday workweek, which must accommodate employment, children, and other responsibilities (Goodman & Stokes, 2020). As a result of the economic concerns of polling day participation and the difficulties related to postal voting, many have viewed electronic voting as the way forward in political exercises. With innovation, internet casting can address the two cost issues connected with postal polling.

First, digital voting networks can supply participants with data to enable them to vote correctly, hence conserving material printing costs. Thus, this is enforced by notifying voters to examine their vote selections before casting their choice if they bypass an election procedure, permitting them to amend their preferences (Goodman & Stokes, 2020). Second, the internet guides the member through the processes required to validate the ballot, ensuring that the person does not miss a step, as the website’s time concerns are beneficial. As a result, jurisdictions suffer fewer costs for hiring voter assistants to help individuals during the physical voting process (Goodman & Stokes, 2020). Additionally, converting to internet systems can drastically cut a nation’s costs. It eliminates the cost of producing and delivering thousands of votes if the government traditionally uses mail-in ballots. Suppose in-person voting becomes the practice in a country’s electoral system (Goodman & Stokes, 2020). In that case, the shift can decrease the expenditures associated with hiring a polling station and generating all papers required for that day’s election.

Enhanced Participation and Involvement

Due to the increasing convenience of use, there is a greater likelihood that more residents will vote, mainly if they can do so from the comfort of their sofa via their cellphone. Additionally, many digital voting systems options feature social media connectivity, allowing the country to improve engagement further (Petitpas et al., 2021). After voters cast their ballots, a page will appear requesting that they share their results via social networking avenues like Facebook or LinkedIn (Petitpas et al., 2021). The generated item will not indicate who they chose; it will simply suggest that they participated in the voting. Therefore, this may entice other people to sign up as well. E-voting simplifies the voting process by requiring less time and effort on the side of the voter (Petitpas et al., 2021). These constitutional changes aim to reduce both the immediate and subjective expenses of casting and the perceived utility of elections.

Electronic voting is particularly appealing to residents who cannot attend a polling location. They include the disabled and elderly; those who live in distant areas; and residents living overseas, and it eliminates the turnaround time involved with the mail system (Petitpas et al., 2021). Enhanced performance is the advantage of online voting since it can be accessed at any place and any time, including at home, at the workplace, on vacation, or on international trips, and thus enables electors to participate (Petitpas et al., 2021). Furthermore, electronic voting is meant to attract the younger generation, for whom social media and the internet have supplanted traditional channels of interaction (Petitpas et al., 2021). Internet voting is projected to improve turnout by providing a more straightforward voting method.

However, whether and to what extent introducing e-voting will increase turnout depends on the formal macroeconomic parameter settings, such as the election mechanisms accessible at the time e-voting is implemented. When only traditional on-site participation mechanisms, such as casting at the polling station, are in situ, adopting e-voting simplifies the polling act and encourages participation by recruiting new voters (Petitpas et al., 2021). In comparison, when another straightforward voting option, such as simple mail voting, is already present, the incremental benefit of e-voting is negligible. In this situation, e-voting primarily functions as a replacement for other voting forms (Petitpas et al., 2021). That is, it is used mainly by individuals who vote regularly and would have voted in another manner if e-voting had not been offered.

Increased Trust in Elections

Elections are intended to provide citizens a voice while also conferring credibility on political representatives. As a result, the effectiveness of a voting process is contingent upon trust. It is critical for a democratic government that all electoral participants can verify that their ballot was documented and tabulated correctly and that the outcomes accurately represent the citizens’ desire. Therefore, digital voting enhances confidence and trust in the accompanying ways. First, it is not enough for a state to possess modern software; it must also employ it appropriately (Warkentin et al., 2018). E-voting technique effectively boosts voting authenticity by fixing existing issues or streamlining mechanisms, is configurable and voter-centered, utilizes different systems, and is executed by qualified experts (Warkentin et al., 2018). Moreover, digital voting effectively enhances trust by incorporating cutting-edge research and development (R&D) developments to promote fundamental voting tenets such as unrestricted, reasonable, equitable, personal, protected, convenient, and expeditious voting.

Second, online voting is an entirely fully transparent technology; it produces reliable, extensive, and consistent information and outcomes. As a result, verified digital and manual material, such as voter-election printed documentation, protects voters’ constitutional freedoms and increases efficiency among election participants (Warkentin et al., 2018). Third, electronic voting is a compelling vehicle for developing more substantial regulatory standards and industry practices by highlighting critical public issues raised by citizens and professionals (Warkentin et al., 2018). Cyber-security studies and inquiries help legislators, electoral organizations, lobbying groups, and technology suppliers.

One of the primary innovation goals, specifically e-voting, is to provide consistently secure systems that quickly produce provable outcomes. Finally, Shahzad and Crowcroft (2019) insinuate that electronic voting equipment is easily repaired and upgraded. The argument is straightforward: technology improves at a breakneck pace, and stagnant approaches are destined for failure ultimately. To improve voting trustworthiness via e-voting, the systems replace outdated and susceptible structures and restructures the entire election management framework to ensure it is entirely fraud-proof (Shahzad & Crowcroft, 2019). Moreover, the design incorporates voter registration details and data sets into the security architecture and holds stakeholders accountable through numerous audits.

Enhanced Result Transmission and Reduced Invalid Votes

The outcomes distribution and compilation operations involve the communication of election results statistics from voting centers to a centralized casting headquarters and their aggregation to produce total results at the district or federal level. Gathering and computing votes from numerous polling sites across the country are frequently the slowest components of the process when using paper-based systems (Agbesi & Asante, 2017). With digital voting software, computers may deliver results instantaneously and consolidate. Agbesi and Asante (2017), therefore, enumerated that as a result, the initial data can be presented rapidly. On the other hand, due to voters’ inability to understand voting cards or guidelines on labeling them, a lack of education enhances the possibility of illegitimate votes. For instance, in India, where 31% of persons are uneducated, and in Somaliland, where big Iris scanners are required, higher spoilt votes have been recorded (Wang et al., 2017). Many votes in different nations have been invalidated before digitization in politics due to errors such as not casting the mark in the correct location or multiple locations.

In several elections, the proportion of rejected ballots exceeds the victory margin, raising questions on the outcome’s integrity. This issue has been resolved in numerous jurisdictions by introducing user-friendly e-voting devices (Wang et al., 2017). Consequently, electors now need merely to engage a button adjacent to the applicable political logo, which is prominently shown during political races. When voters finish and digitize paper votes somewhat of hitting a computerized button, the scanner can be set to acknowledge only precisely done polls (Wang et al., 2017). Electronic voting software may contain precautions regarding ballot box filling which was once a typical occurrence in remote areas of a nation, where outlaws or political activists take control of election points to load containers with votes for a chosen candidate.

Electronic voting, or e-Voting, is the practice of labeling or casting a ballot during polls using innovative equipment. As a result, a government that implements online voting into its political structure reaps enormous benefits. E-voting eliminates the difficulty of identifying and hiring numerous polling stations and the expense of a significant proportion of mail ballots. Citizens may participate from the comfort of their homes throughout the voting periods. Digital polling is eased when a person has access to a laptop, cellphone, computer, broadband, or other network connectivity.

Furthermore, the internet helps the individual through the operation of validating the vote, guaranteeing that the individual does not skip a procedure, as the platform’s time constraints are advantageous. As a result, governments incur lower expenditures associated with the employment of voter aides to assist voters throughout the existing voting system. Electronic voting provides better effectiveness since it can be accessed from any location and at any time and at home, at employment, on holiday, or foreign journeys, enabling registrants to engage. Finally, in certain polls, the percentage of discarded votes surpasses the winning margin, creating concerns about the legitimacy of the results. Several countries have addressed this problem by implementing user-friendly electronic voting equipment.

Adekunle, S. E. (2020). A review of electronic voting systems: Strategy for a novel . International Journal of Information Engineering & Electronic Business , 12 (1), 1-11.

Agbesi, S., & Asante, G. (2019, November). Electronic voting recording system based on blockchain technology. In 2019 12th CMI Conference on Cybersecurity and Privacy (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

Germann, M., & Serdült, U. (2017). Internet voting and turnout: Evidence from Switzerland . Electoral Studies , 47 , 1-12.

Goodman, N., & Stokes, L. C. (2020). Reducing the cost of voting: An evaluation of internet voting’s effect on turnout . British Journal of Political Science , 50 (3), 1155-1167.

Johnson, A. A., & Powell, S. (2020). Disability and election administration in the United States: Barriers and improvements . Policy Studies , 41 (2-3), 249-270.

Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2019, October). Election integrity and electronic voting machines in 2018 Georgia, USA. In International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting (pp. 166-182). Springer, Cham.

Petitpas, A., Jaquet, J. M., & Sciarini, P. (2021). Does e-voting matter for turnout, and to whom? Electoral Studies , 71 , 1-14.

Shahzad, B., & Crowcroft, J. (2019). Trustworthy electronic voting using adjusted blockchain technology . IEEE Access , 7 , 24477-24488.

Wang, K. H., Mondal, S. K., Chan, K., & Xie, X. (2017). A review of contemporary e-voting: Requirements, technology, systems and usability. Data Science and Pattern Recognition , 1 (1), 31-47.

Warkentin, M., Sharma, S., Gefen, D., Rose, G. M., & Pavlou, P. (2018). Social identity and trust in internet-based voting adoption . Government Information Quarterly , 35 (2), 195-209.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 27). The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-benefits-of-electronic-voting-in-politics/

"The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics." IvyPanda , 27 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-benefits-of-electronic-voting-in-politics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics'. 27 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-benefits-of-electronic-voting-in-politics/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-benefits-of-electronic-voting-in-politics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Benefits of Electronic Voting in Politics." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-benefits-of-electronic-voting-in-politics/.

• Ballot Initiative in the 13th Amendment
• Us Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Exercising the Right to Vote
• Canadian Elections in 2012 and Need for Changes
• Presidential Debate: Key Takeaways
• Elections in Japan and China
• United States Presidential Election 2008
• Getting Involved in Social Movements
• Basics of Canadian Politics & Government: Women in Politic

Smartmatic's blog about electronic voting

What is Electronic Voting and its Advantages?

The future of mankind is digital, but how will democracy keep pace with an ever-increasing digital citizenship?

At Smartmatic we believe that the future of democracy is digital , as well. If you are part of an election management body (EMB) or just trying to understand the world of e-voting , this article can help you.

What is electronic voting – e-Voting?

Electronic voting, or e-Voting, is the use of modern technologies in the process of marking or casting a vote during elections. This definition encompasses political elections, referendums and plebiscites . A distinction must be made to differentiate e-Voting from electronic counting (e-Counting) , which is the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) during the counting, not marking a ballot or casting a vote in an election. E-Counting usually involves the use of optical mark recognition (OMR) scanning machines.

These are the main e-Voting systems types:

• Direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines , which are used to electronically mark and cast votes.
• Ballot marking devices (BMD), also known as electronic ballot markers (EBM) , which electronically mark and print a paper ballot.
• Online voting or internet voting systems , which allow voters to mark and cast their votes online.

Advantages of Electronic Voting

Below a list of strengths usually associated with e-Voting. The classification is based on our experience and on the exhaustive list of advantages provided by IDEA International .

Advantages for election management bodies

• Faster counting and delivering of election results.
• Increased trust in elections as human error is avoided.
• Increased voter turnout, especially when internet voting is involved .
• Cost reduction when applying e-Voting on multiple electoral events.
• Reduced ballot waste.

Improved convenience for voters

• Easier vote marking and casting as the voting experience helps to avoid errors, in particular when over-voting, under-voting or making incorrect selections.
• Ballots available in multiple languages.
• Vote remotely from home or other locations using internet voting.

Improved Accessibility

• People with disabilities are able to vote thanks to features like sip-and-puff voting, paddle voting, high-contrast viewing screens and audio voting.
• Online voting allows people who are unable to reach the polling places to vote.

Fraud Prevention

• e-Voting reduces the chances of accidental or intentional variations in vote counts by reducing poll worker direct interaction with ballots or counts.
• e-Voting and online voting reduce voter errors and the chances of voter fraud, increasing electoral integrity .

Types of e-Voting systems 

Below are descriptions for the different types of e-Voting systems:

Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines

A DRE is a voting machine that has the following features:

• An input device to mark the vote, for example a touchscreen or some other device designed for specific disabilities.
• A storage device to directly register individual votes after the user casts it. Consolidated votes can be stored as well.
• Optionally, a printer to generate a Voter Verifiable Audit Trail (VVPAT) which produces the required paper records for audits, as well as to allow the voter to verify her selections.
• Optionally, some communication device to transmit votes to the central counting location.

Ballot Marking Devices (BMD), also known as Electronic Ballot Markers (EBM)

A BMD or EBM is a voting machine that has these features:

• An input device to mark votes.
• No storage devices as votes are not stored individually, nor consolidated.
• A printer to mark the voter selections in the ballot that is later either manually counted or electronically counted by means of an e-Counting device, for example an optical scanner.

Online Voting or internet voting systems

Online voting or internet voting has the following features:

• Votes are marked and casted from either a public computer, computers in voting kiosks or even from any device connected to the Internet.
• Each vote is transmitted to a central location by means of a communications network which can be Internet, SMS or any other digital service.

The discussion above introduced what is electronic voting, its advantages and the main types of e-voting systems. This illustrates the impact of technology on democracy.

Smartmatic is the largest election technology company in the world, we aim to increase integrity in the democratic process , enabling better governments. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any doubt concerning our election solutions .

Related Posts

• ← Do you need to be 18 to register to vote in the US? (Hint: it’s a trick question)
• Register to Vote Today (or Any Day) →

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

• Subscribe to the ACE Newsletter
• English  
• Español  
• Français  

Personal tools

• Practitioners' Network

ELECTORAL FRAMEWORK

Electoral participation, electoral management, electoral integrity, electoral operations, encyclopaedia.

• Guiding Principles
• Telecommunications Technology
• Computer Hardware and Software
• Other technologies
• Choosing and Acquiring Technology
• Planning and Development Strategies
• Quality Assurance
• Financing Technology
• Management Structure
• Staffing, Training and Support
• Evaluation and Audit
• Ensuring Reliability of Data
• Manual/Alternative Contingency Systems
• System Verification, Testing and Maintenance
• Performance Safeguards
• Public Assurance Measures
• Public Information and Privacy Policies
• Using GIS to Draw District Boundaries
• Using GIS to Evaluate Redistricting Plans
• Requirements for Using GIS Software for Redistricting
• Making the Decision to Use GIS for Redistricting
• Party Registration
• Providing Information To Parties
• Party And Campaign Financing - Regulation and Reporting
• Candidate Nomination
• Purposes of Voter Registration
• Voter Identification Methods
• Voter Registration Processing
• Voter Register Data
• Audio Visual Applications
• Automated Direct Mail
• Computer Kiosks
• Desktop Publishing
• Special Needs Groups
• Voting Operation Steps
• Technology for Voting
• Project Management
• Personnel Management
• Financial Management Systems
• Supply and Inventory Management
• The Future of Elections and Technology
• Bibliography
• Contributors
• Case Studies
• EISA - Promoting Credible Elections & Democratic Governance in Africa
• Elections Canada
• International IDEA
• United Nations. Electoral Assistance Division (EAD)
• INE - Instituto Nacional Electoral
• United Nations Development Programme
• The Carter Center
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Accessibility
• Copyright and Disclaimer

© 1998-2024 ACE project

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Publics in Emerging Economies Worry Social Media Sow Division, Even as They Offer New Chances for Political Engagement
• 3. Publics think technology impacts the political environment in both positive and negative ways

Table of Contents

• 1. Users say they regularly encounter false and misleading content on social media – but also new ideas
• 2. More people are comfortable discussing politics in person than on their phones or via social media
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix A: About the focus groups
• Appendix B: Technology-related surveys regularly find that people see connectivity bringing positives and negatives
• Appendix C: Detailed tables

Beyond their views of the personal impact of various technologies, publics in these countries are divided over how the internet in general has impacted politics in their societies. An 11-country median of 44% say the increasing use of the internet has had a good impact on politics, but 28% feel that impact has been largely bad – and this balance of opinion is most negative in Tunisia, Jordan and Lebanon.

Adults in these countries also feel access to technology has had a variety of both positive and negative impacts on their fellow citizens. On the positive side of the ledger, a median of 78% say access to the internet, mobile phones and social media has made people more informed about current events. And when asked about the impact of social media on the broader political process, majorities in nine of these 11 countries say they have increased the ability for ordinary citizens to take part in the political process.

At the same time, an 11-country median of 72% say these technologies have made people easier to manipulate with rumors and false information. And majorities in eight countries say social media have increased the risk that citizens might be manipulated by domestic politicians.

Mixed attitudes about the internet’s overall impact on politics

Adults in these countries express mixed views about the overall influence of the internet on politics. In most countries , larger shares say the internet has had a good impact on politics than say the same about issues such as children or morality. But notably smaller shares say the internet has had a good impact on politics than say this about its effect on issues such as education, the economy or local culture (for more, see the first report in this series).

Adults in these countries also make little distinction between the impact of the internet and mobile phones when it comes to politics. Nearly identical shares say the internet and mobile phones have had a good, bad or negligible impact on politics.

Across these 11 countries, public opinion about the internet’s impact on politics is most negative in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. In Lebanon, nearly twice as many say the internet has had a bad (42%) rather than good (23%) influence on politics. And in Jordan and Tunisia, the shares saying the internet’s impact on politics has been good are comparable to the shares saying it has been bad.

In addition to having a comparably negative balance of sentiment relative to the other countries in this survey, publics in these three countries have also turned somewhat less upbeat in recent years in their assessments of the internet’s impact on politics. From 2014 to 2018, the share of adults in these countries saying the internet has had a good influence on politics has declined by 11 percentage points in Jordan, 9 points in Lebanon and 6 points in Tunisia. By contrast, sentiment in the other seven countries for which trends are available either grew more positive or stayed largely the same over that time. This positive shift has been most pronounced in Mexico, South Africa and Venezuela.

Many think technology has made people better informed – but also easier to manipulate

When asked about the impact of mobile phones, the internet and social media on various political behaviors and attitudes, people in these nations tend to express seemingly dual views of how technology has brought “more” to society: that it has made people more informed, yet more manipulatable; more divided, yet sometimes more accepting of others.

At one level, publics in these countries believe that technology simultaneously makes people more informed and more gullible. Majorities in every country – and an 11-country median of 78% – say access to technology has made people more informed about current events. At the same time, majorities in every country except for Vietnam – and an 11-country median of 72% – say technology has made it easier to manipulate people with false information and rumors.

We become numb to the news, like the presidential campaigns in Mexico. A term ago, we were struggling to get more political awareness, and now everything is made a meme and laughed at. It defeats the purpose of the internet. MAN, 28, MEXICO

The survey highlights similar tensions over whether these technologies make people more divided or more accepting of others. A median of 58% say access to mobile phones, the internet and social media has made people more divided in their political opinions. At the same time, a median of 52% say these technologies have made people more accepting of those who have different views than they do. And a median of 55% say they have generally made people more willing to engage in political debates.

These positive and negative views of technology’s impact on political attitudes are often related. In 10 of the 11 countries surveyed, those who believe technology has made people more informed are more likely than others to say technology has also made people easier to manipulate.

Similarly, in most countries those who say technology has made people more accepting of diverse viewpoints are simultaneously more likely to say it has made people more divided in their political opinions.

Through our mobile phones, since there is that social media, it has really led to the spread of hatred and tribalism amongst ourselves. MAN, 38, KENYA

These same costs and benefits are visible when it comes to technology’s impact on political news and discussion. For instance, people in these countries overwhelmingly feel mobile phones have improved people’s ability to obtain news. Yet an 11-country median of 64% say people should be very concerned about exposure to false information when using their mobile devices.

People in some countries stand out for their views on the influence of technology on politics

Especially large shares of Jordanians feel technology has made people more receptive to most of the political impacts measured in the survey, and this is especially true of the notion that technology makes people more informed but also easier to manipulate. Around nine-in-ten Jordanians say access to mobile phones, the internet and social media has made people more informed about current events, but a similar share says this access makes them more vulnerable to being manipulated with rumors and false information. And roughly three-quarters of Jordanians say technology has made people more divided in their political opinions, but also more willing to engage in political debates.

By contrast, Vietnamese adults are relatively likely to say access to these technologies hasn’t changed much compared with those in the other countries surveyed. One-third or more Vietnamese say these technologies haven’t had much impact on people’s willingness to engage in political debates (33%), how divided they are in their political opinions (35%) or how accepting they are of those with different views (35%), while 26% say they haven’t had much impact on how easy people are to manipulate. In each instance, these represent the largest shares among the 11 countries surveyed.

Meanwhile, Mexicans stand out for their assessment of the impact of technologies on people’s tolerance of different viewpoints. Some 35% of Mexicans say technology has made people more accepting of people who have different views than they do, but a nearly identical share (36%) says technology has had a negative impact in this regard. Younger Mexicans are especially likely to say technologies have made people less tolerant to people who hold different views: 41% hold this view, compared with 30% of Mexicans ages 50 and older.

Social media users, those affiliated with a political party and the more educated are more likely to see both positive and negative political impacts of digital technologies

Certain groups are especially likely to cite both the positive and negative impacts of technology on political engagement.

For example, social media users are more likely than non-users to say technology has made people more informed about current events in all 11 countries surveyed; more accepting of people with different views in eight countries; and more willing to engage in political debates in nine countries. 10 At the same time, in nine countries a larger share of users say technology is making people more divided in their political opinions – and in 10 countries a larger share of social media users say technology is making people easier to mislead with misinformation (see Appendix C for detailed tables).

These attitudes also vary by education level. 11 Across all 11 countries, adults with a secondary education or higher are more likely to say technology has made people more informed about current events relative to those who do not have a secondary education. And in nine countries, adults with higher levels of educational attainment are more inclined to say technology has made people more subject to false information and rumors.

Meanwhile, adults with higher levels of educational attainment are more likely to say technology has contributed to both political divisions and tolerance of opposing viewpoints in seven of these countries (Colombia, India, Kenya, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tunisia and Vietnam).

In eight of the nine countries for which partisan information is available, those who have a partisan affiliation are somewhat more likely than those who don’t identify with any particular party to say technology has made people more willing to engage in political debate. 12 And in five of those countries, those with a partisan affiliation are more likely to say access to technology has made people more divided in their political opinions. But in most countries, similar shares of the affiliated and unaffiliated say technology has made people more informed, more accepting of those with different viewpoints and more susceptible to misinformation. 13

Lastly, social media users’ assessments of the impact of technology on political attitudes are somewhat related to whether they view social media as an important news source. In seven out of the 11 countries, those who say social media are a very important news source for them to get political news and information are more likely than users who do not think social media are as important to say technology has made people more informed about news and current events.

Social media seen to confer benefits – but also risks – on the overall political process

When asked about different impacts social media have had on their country’s political process, publics in these countries are more likely than not to say social media offer new avenues for political engagement. A median of 57% – and majorities in every country except for Vietnam and India – say social media have increased the ability for ordinary people in their country to have a meaningful voice in the political process. And a median of 53% say these platforms have increased the ability of nongovernmental organizations to promote their causes.

But these perceived benefits from social media are matched with perceived costs. An 11-country median of 65% say social media have increased the risk that people in their country might be manipulated by domestic politicians. And when asked whether these platforms might facilitate foreign interference in their country’s elections, a median of 55% say these platforms have indeed increased this risk – although a median of 27% feel they have not had much effect either way.

Now it is much easier for our countrymen to know about the plans of our government for our OFW [Overseas Filipino Workers]. WOMAN, 48, PHILIPPINES

Among those who use social media, there are only minimal differences between the views of younger (ages 18 to 29) and older adults (those ages 50+) on these questions. However, there are some differences based on how extensively people rely on these platforms for information. In most countries, those who say social media are a very important news source are more likely to say these platforms have increased ordinary people’s ability to have a meaningful voice in politics, and that they have helped nongovernmental groups to promote their causes. At the same time, in seven countries this group is also more likely to say these platforms have increased the risk of people being manipulated by domestic politicians, compared with users who do not see social media as a very important source of information.

In several countries, sizable shares say they do not know how these platforms have impacted the broader political system

These questions were asked of all adults – regardless of whether they themselves use social media platforms or not. And in several of these countries, sizable shares of those who do not use any social media platforms are unable to offer an opinion on how social media have impacted these aspects of the political process. This is especially true in Jordan, Lebanon, India and Vietnam. Among people in these countries who do not use social media, as many as 21% of Vietnamese, 34% of Jordanians, 41% of Lebanese and 51% of Indians either do not know the answer to these individual questions or refused to offer a guess.

Similarly, demographic groups who use social media at low rates (such as older adults or those with lower levels of education) are often more likely to say they do not know how social media have impacted these elements of the political process.

• In India, Jordan, Lebanon and South Africa, non-internet users are less likely to offer a response. ↩
• Social media platform and messaging app users include those who say they use one or more of the seven specific online platforms asked about on the survey: Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Viber, Instagram, Snapchat and Tinder. Overall, a median of 64% use at least one of these platforms across these 11 countries. ↩
• For the purpose of comparing education groups across countries, we standardize education levels based on the United Nations’ International Standard Classification of Education. In all nations surveyed, the lower education category is below secondary education and the higher category is secondary or above. ↩
• This analysis excludes Vietnam, which has a single-party system, and Jordan, where fewer than 100 people said they had a partisan identification. ↩
• In some countries, non-social media users, those with lower levels of education or those who have no partisan affiliation are less likely to offer a response. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Emerging Technology
• Global Economy & Trade
• Global Trade
• Social Media
• Technology Adoption

Many Americans think generative AI programs should credit the sources they rely on

Americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, computer chips in human brains: how americans view the technology amid recent advances, striking findings from 2023, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

How can modern technology help your election process?

Click image to view full size.

Member organization elections have come a long way in the last 20 years. Paper ballots are still popular, but over the years organizations have added phone and online voting options.

With technology seemingly evolving at the speed of light, it’s beneficial for member organizations to utilize the latest election tech. Why?

More voting options give members a convenient way to cast their ballots, member organizations increase their election participation and organizations benefit from an increase in member engagement.

Here are five technology upgrades to consider for your next election:

Embedded login links

When organizations offer an online voting option, the top issue is potential voters misplacing their user name and/or password information.

You can eliminate this issue with embedded auto login links right in the election invitation email and any reminder emails!

Users simply click the link, are automatically authenticated and allowed into the online voting system to cast their secure ballot.

Election Analytics

Elections provide valuable insight into member behavior and preferences. Utilizing the data collected during elections enables you to improve future elections and better understand your membership. With election analytics , you can:

• Visualize geographic hotspots: Determine areas of focus. Strategically promote election information more heavily in areas with high voter activity to maximize participation or target areas with lower engagement to boost turnout.
• Quantify voter participation methods: Analyze member preferences for mobile, online, and in-person voting to tailor your approach and increase engagement.
• Identify popular devices, browsers, and operating systems: Understand popular voting methods, nailing down your members’ most preferred voting devices and preferred browsers.

Survey & Ballot Systems (SBS) ensures your data is secure with 24/7 monitoring, TLS encryption, and other industry-leading practices .

Are you ready to add technology to your election process?

When it comes to getting members to cast their ballots, the key is to make it as easy and convenient as possible.

By utilizing custom QR codes , voters can simply scan the code (printed on personalized election materials) with their mobile device and quickly log in to their secure online ballots. And your organization gets credit for offering a quick and simple way for your members to vote!

Single sign-on

As we mentioned before, “I forgot my login information,” is the most repeated phrase member organizations hear during their elections – just another barrier to voting.

Single sign-on technology turns your organization’s website into an online election portal and securely authenticates eligible voters right then and there.

No more forgotten passwords and increased traffic to your website – that makes single sign-on a powerful solution that works for you.

Participation reminders

When members don’t receive an election reminder , they’re much less likely to vote. Members receiving at least three election reminders are nearly twice as likely to cast their ballots.

Letters, postcards, emails and online reminders, when well-timed and skillfully crafted, are a proven way to boost voter turnout. If this sounds like a lot of work, it can be if you’re not taking advantage of technology to schedule, deploy, track and report the results. Let technology take this task of your plate.

Technology, when it’s tested and expertly used, can increase voter participation by providing members quick, easy, convenient and secure options to cast their ballots.

Interested in deploying any of these technologies in your next election? Wondering how to make election technology work for you? Contact us any time , we’re here to help!

Interested?

Are you ready to improve your election with top-notch election products and services? Fill out our form or give us a call at 1-800-974-8099 to speak to an SBS election expert today.

Get the Latest News

Stay up to date with product news, deals, and helpful insights.

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Email * By supplying your contact information, you authorize SBS to contact you with further information and can unsubscribe anytime.
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.