Acerca del autor

R. Michael Alvarez is professor of political science at the California Institute of Technology, USA and codirector of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project. His books include Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion, written with John Brehm (Princeton, 2002). He is a nationally recognized expert on voting behavior and elections.
Thad E. Hall

Fragmento. © Reproducción autorizada. Todos los derechos reservados.

Point, Click, Vote

Brookings Institution Press

Chapter One

During the recount of votes in Florida in the 2000 presidentialelection, one of the most heated debates was over how military ballotsshould be counted. Under a 1982 federal consent decree between the U.S.Department of Justice and the state of Florida, ballots from overseas votersare to be accepted up to ten days after an election. As the nationwatched and the presidential election hung in the balance, election supervisorsand canvassing boards met to determine which overseas voteswould count and which would not.

The canvassing boards often rejected as many or more ballots fromoverseas voters as they accepted. Orange County-home of the touristmagnet Disneyworld-rejected 117 overseas ballots and accepted onlythirty. But in Escambia County-home of the Pensacola Naval Air Station-the canvassing board rejected 112 ballots and accepted 147. Acrossthe state, election officials estimated that 40 percent of overseas ballotswere rejected in the initial 2000 election count-about as many as wererejected in 1996.

Thousands of individuals-many of them men and women in theUnited States armed forces, military dependents, or civilians serving thenation in nonmilitary capacities-went to great lengths to procure anabsentee ballot and vote in the 2000 election, only to have their ballot notincluded in the final count. In the end, their votes were disregarded for reasonsthat occur in election after election. The absentee ballots of manyvoters were rejected because the ballot lacked a signature or witness. Inmany other cases, the rejection of the ballot was not due to a mistake ofthe voter; while the Pentagon has rules specifying that all mail is to bepostmarked, military mail clerks sometimes fail to do so in order to get themail into bags and onto waiting airplanes or boats headed for the UnitedStates. As Pat Halloran, the election supervisor in Okaloosa County,noted, "Postmarks were never a problem before; we never accepted [ballotswithout postmarks] before, and we didn't accept them this time."

The experience of overseas voters in the 2000 election raises fundamentalquestions about the election process: Can technology facilitatevoter registration and voting? Can registration and voting from remotelocations be done easily and accurately, so that voters do not have toworry about whether they are eligible to vote or whether their ballot willbe counted? For many, the answer seems simple: Internet voting.

The 2000 election was a historic event. Of course, most people view itas being historic for the obvious reason: it was one of the closest presidentialelections in the history of the United States, and for thirty-sevendays, it was unclear who would be elected president. The nation receiveda crash course in election administration, learning about voting procedures,voting equipment, pregnant and dimpled "chads," military andabsentee voting, and the rules for counting and recounting ballots. In theend, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, by haltingthe Florida recounts, made the story that much more compelling.

However, the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential vote inFlorida was not the only thing that made the election historic. History alsowas being made on election night because hidden among the tens of millionsof ballots being counted across the country were eighty-four ballotsthat were unique in the history of U.S. presidential elections. These ballotswere cast over the Internet by citizens overseas, the first online ballotsever counted in a presidential general election. Moreover, earlier in theyear, online voting had come to the primary process in two states: in astraw poll of Alaska Republicans and in the Arizona Democratic presidentialprimary, when Arizona became first state to use the Internet as amode of voting.

For many, Internet voting seems natural. Ever since the Netscape Navigatorsoftware made the World Wide Web easy to use, the Internet hasbeen touted as a revolutionary force in American society. Indeed, in manyways, it has been revolutionary. In just four years, Internet use in theUnited States skyrocketed: while only 18 percent of households had anInternet connection in 1997, by 2000 almost 42 percent of householdswere online and more than half of all households had a personal computer.For young people, Internet availability is even more ubiquitous-almost95 percent of white school children and approximately 80 percent ofminority students have access to the Internet at school. An entire generationof kids will soon enter adulthood with no memory of a worldwithout instant messaging, web surfing, and e-mail.

The revolutionary nature of the Internet has carried over to the politicalrealm, as Internet savvy politicians have realized how this technologycan be used to further their interests. Consider the following examplesfrom the past several years:

Presidential candidates in the 2000 election used the Internet in everyaspect of their campaigns. Steve Forbes declared his candidacy in an onlineweb cast. Senator John McCain raised $810,000 in campaign contributionsover the Internet in forty-eight hours after winning the NewHampshire primary; 40 percent of the donors were first-time politicalcontributors and 34 percent were under the age of forty. Candidatesposted speeches, policy positions, and attacks and counterattacks on theirwebsites at a frantic pace as they competed to control the flow of informationduring the campaign.

Unconventional political activists also have found the Internet to be arevolutionary tool. As Juliette Beck, an activist in the antiglobalizationmovement, told the New York Times, "The events and the nonviolencetraining and the political theater-the Internet made it possible.... Wehave lots of Lilliputians all acting autonomously and at the same time connected."With the Internet, disparate groups of activists share information,coordinate activities, rally supporters, and develop strategies without evermeeting face to face. Wireless technology is expanding the opportunitiesfor such activities, allowing political dissidents and other actors to communicateon the fly, as events occur.

Because of the difficulty of controlling the flow of information online,the Internet often is touted as the medium that will promote democracyaround the world. As President Bill Clinton said, "In the new century, libertywill spread by cell phone and cable modem.... We know how muchthe Internet has changed America, and we are already an open society.Imagine how much it could change China. Now, there's no question Chinahas been trying to crack down on the Internet-good luck. That's sort oflike trying to nail Jell-O to the wall."

Finally, governments across the United States and around the world aredeveloping "e-government" initiatives designed to connect the public tothe government through the Internet. In addition to offering direct e-mailconnections to government staff, e-government allows the public to accessa variety of services online. For example, the federal government hopes tohave 80 percent of taxpayers file their tax returns electronically by 2007;in fiscal year 2002, 20.7 percent of all tax returns were filed electronically.11 Millions of Americans use the Internet every day to get informationfrom the government, and there is growing demand for more online governmentservices.

Internet Voting: A Good Idea?

With the Internet being used for a variety of different political activities-fromcollecting information to collecting political contributions-it is onlya small leap to asking why the Internet cannot be used for voting as well.President Clinton asked just that question well before the 2000 presidentialelection; in a memorandum dated December 17, 1999, he directed theNational Science Foundation to study the potential for Internet voting.Some would argue that Internet voting could be a panacea for what ailsour political system.

But before we launch deeply into the debate over Internet voting, weneed to clarify our use of the term. When we write about Internet votingin this book we are discussing what has been defined as "remote Internetvoting." Remote Internet voting is voting by using a computer that is notunder the physical control of election officials; the ballot is cast over anInternet connection. It is important to distinguish remote Internet voting,or what we refer to in this book as Internet voting, from three other typesof Internet voting:

-Kiosk Internet voting. Voting is done at certain locations by using acomputer under the physical control of election officials to cast a ballotover the Internet.

-Polling place Internet voting. Voting done at any valid polling placeby using a computer under the physical control of election officials tocast a ballot over the Internet.

-Precinct Internet voting. Voting that is identical to polling placeInternet voting except that the voter can vote only at his or her ownprecinct polling place.

Despite the four types of Internet voting, unless otherwise indicated,when we say Internet voting we mean remote Internet voting, although inpractice a jurisdiction may use any combination of the four types in anelection. In addition, our use of the term "voting" includes both registrationand voting; thus when we write about Internet voting systems in thisbook, we are talking about an integrated remote Internet registration andvoting system.

Proponents of Internet voting make several arguments in its favor. First,Internet voting may make it easier for voters to participate in an electionbecause every computer that has an online connection becomes a potentialpolling site. Internet voting also might lower the cost of voting for theentire electorate, and it has the potential to eliminate problems such asthose that might have kept millions of voters from participating in the2000 presidential election. No longer would voters have to trudge downto a school, church, or community center in order to vote. No longerwould factors like bad weather, long lines, or confusion over the locationof polling places impede voter participation. Instead-in the comfort oftheir home or office, a public library, or an Internet caf-individualscould log on and vote without having to make a special effort. The Internetalso could be used to register voters and to allow them to check thestatus of their registration, thus reducing problems that often plague thefirst steps in the electoral process.

Internet voting could especially lower the cost of participation for certainspecial populations. Consider, for example, four types of voters. First,imagine a soldier overseas or a sailor on a nuclear submarine. Both areserving their country, yet their ability to vote is limited because of thelogistics of obtaining an absentee ballot and getting it back in time to becounted. In the last presidential election, military personnel encounterednumerous problems in the voting process. With the Internet, they couldvote from anywhere in the world, confident that their vote would bereceived and counted.

Second, consider voters confined to a wheelchair. They want to participatein the electoral process like everyone else, but in most of the UnitedStates that is difficult for them to do. According to a General AccountingOffice study conducted during the 2000 presidential election, more than80 percent of polling places across the nation had some barrier that preventedcitizens in a wheelchair from accessing the poll site. With Internetvoting, disabled voters could cast their ballot from their own home withouthaving to navigate the myriad of obstacles that await them at thepolling place.

Third, imagine an executive who travels frequently or a working singleparent. Both might want to vote on election day but find it difficult orimpossible to do so because of events beyond their control. For example,the executive may have to take an unexpected trip out of town the daybefore the election or the single parent may have to work longer thanusual on Election Day and then rush to get his or her children from thedaycare center. Under current election procedures, these potential votersgenerally cannot obtain an absentee ballot on short notice. In each case,with Internet voting, these individuals could find it easier to vote becausethey could do so without having to make a trip to the polls.

Finally, Internet voting might pull the hardest-to-reach voters-thosebetween the ages of eighteen and twenty-five-into the political process.As noted, younger Americans typically are well-versed in using the Internet.They have a tremendous amount of experience in surfing the Net andlike the idea of using new, cutting-edge technologies. Internet voting couldhelp increase voting among this group, which historically has voted at verylow rates. The Internet also could help many young people who areattending college away from home to vote without having to make a specialtrip home or request an absentee ballot.

Proponents also note that even without the Internet, alternative votingmethods have become more pervasive since the early 1970s. The mostextreme version of alternative voting is found in Oregon, which nowholds all of its elections by mail. The state has no poll site voting at all;instead, all voters receive a ballot by mail that they can cast anytime afterthey receive it through election day. Oregon's system often is presented asanalogous to Internet voting because it is a truly remote system designedto lower the cost of voting by making it easier to vote. According to thatargument, Internet voting would not be much different from voting inOregon: everyone votes from home; they just use the technologically superiorInternet instead of the mail.

Internet voting also could have a positive effect on other factors that aredifficult to quantify. Proponents of Internet voting have asserted that itcould increase the quality of votes cast. It is easy to imagine a voter openingone browser window on her computer to display the ballot, openinga second window to display a voter guide with information about candidatesand ballot measures, and opening two or three other windows tocandidate, party, or other election-oriented websites. The voter could thenspend more time becoming informed about the choices she faces, in theconvenience of her home or office, increasing the quality of her vote.Internet voting systems could also be programmed to help voters avoidcommon mistakes, such as casting more votes than allowed in a certainrace.

Imagine moreover a system of Internet voting in which voters canaccess their ballot weeks before the election, make their choices then, butrevise their votes until 8:00 p.m. on election day.

Continues...

Excerpted from Point, Click, Voteby R. Michael Alvarez Thad E. Hall Copyright © 2004 by Brookings Institution Press . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.