Norway’s government ministry in charge of Internet voting has announced that future trials of the technology will be discontinued for the time being. Irresponsible news sources, most prominently the BBC, have had a field day inventing reasons as to why Parliament and the Ministry of Modernization made this decision. Unheard through the din of Chicken Little histrionics, the Ministry has posted a “corrective statement” especially for the BBC on its website. Also, Norway’s Institute for Social Research (ISR) has evaluated the 2013 experiment. Here’s what the Norwegians say:
Turnout
Contrary to the BBC report, turnout was not a factor in
Norway’s decision. The Ministry states that “Internet voting was never intended
or expected to raise voter turnout. The main goal of the pilots was to increase
accessibility for marginal groups, such as disabled or expatriate voters.”
These goals were achieved.
The ISR found that among those overseas Norwegians who were registered
in the 12 trial towns, turnout was 9% higher than for those abroad who were not
registered in participating municipalities. (p136) And, a whopping 66% of
overseas voters who were eligible to do so voted online. (p137)
Back home, the use of Internet voting increased by nearly
10%. In the 2011 trials, 26% of the votes were cast online; but in 2013 that
number went up to 35%. (p135)
Folks who were non-voters in the past may have been drawn to
vote by the new technology. “19 percent of the non-voters in 2011 cast their
ballots online in 2013,” and among these, younger voters voted online more than
other groups. (p136)
The ease of voting online was the major reason given by
online voters. This was especially true for “people with special needs.”
With a low regard for veracity, the BBC reported that “the fact
that the trials did not boost turnout also led to the experiment ending.” Small
wonder why the BBC article would say this. Online voting has recently been
suggested by Jenny Watson, the head of Britain’s Electoral Commission, as a way
to boost turnout among young people. The BBC editors oppose online voting, and twisted the truth
about Norway to suit their own agenda.
Security
The BBC article is entitled, “E-voting experiments end in
Norway amid security fears.” Norway’s
correction: “Quite to the contrary, [an] evaluation report shows very high
levels of voter trust in Internet voting – as much as 94% of Internet voters
report trust in Internet voting.” In
fact, as to the technology itself, “There have been no significant security
concerns raised in the trials.”
Encryption
The BBC writes that some unnamed “Software experts” had
criticisms of the “encryption scheme” used by Norway. But these jibs did not
come from any of the real experts who
actually built the system. Indeed, the Ministry counters that its system has “received
widespread international acclaim for the use of a verifiable cryptographic
voting protocol, which allowed third parties to perform robust audits of the
count.”
Privacy
The ISR reports that most “of the internet voters cast their
votes in private.” But many of the online
voters take a distinctly casual attitude towards privacy. A significant 27% of online
voters “stated that they were not alone in the room when they voted,” and 7%
reported that they willingly “let others [see] how they voted.” (p138)
Attitudes towards privacy vary between generations. Younger
voters are somewhat less concerned with it than older voters. (p138)
Improper Conduct
Internet voting neither invited nor facilitated cheating.
Only about 1% “stated that they experienced any pressure to vote for a specific
party. Internet voters were not exposed to more pressure than others.” (p139)
Likewise, only about 1% “stated that others had tried to buy
their vote, or that they knew about cases of vote-buying. There are no
significant differences between internet voters and other voters in this
respect.” (p139)
Coercion and Secrecy
A senior adviser on the Internet voting trials, Christian
Bull, says that a closer look at the public opinion studies of voter concerns
shows that “The ‘fear factor’ in Norway is all about secrecy of the ballot when
ballots are cast outside of the polling stations. It has nothing to do with
technology, and would apply equally to postal voting.”*
At least some of the voters in the 12 towns where the trials were conducted understood the re-voting process. Out of a quarter million eligible voters, “528 electronic votes were cancelled due to voters having cast a paper vote and 2281 electronic votes were cancelled because the voter had re-voted electronically.” These are the folks who knew how to use the technology, and trusted in it. In the Ministry, and among election observers, there “is no suspicion that any voters successfully voted both electronically and on paper.” The BBC suggestion that some voters cast two votes, both of which were counted, is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately, polling in the participating towns revealed that less than half the respondents understood the re-voting option. Apparently, those folks, and a great many of the voters outside the trial areas, didn’t understand that this re-voting measure could protect the “sanctity” of the vote, and they retained fears about the possibility of coercion, loss of privacy, and buying/selling of votes
Lessons
While attitudes towards voting online among the quarter
million eligible voters in the trial areas were very positive, Norway has a
population of over five million, and it is among these folks that resistance to
Internet voting is highest.
Has there been a failure of public education outside the
trial areas which has allowed a consensus based on uninformed fear to emerge in
the country, and to influence Parliament?
“Due to the lack of broad political will to introduce
Internet voting,” writes the Ministry (and under pressure from Parliament), it
has “decided not to continue expending public resources on continuing the
pilots.”
Could the problem here be that the system technicians
hyper-focused on getting the technology right, but neglected the human
dimension; i.e., public relations? If so, then they need to re-focus their efforts
if Internet voting is to ever take hold in Norway.
*Personal communication on Linkedin, also the source of the
“1%” figure used.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter:
wjkno1
Author of Internet
Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
