On June 8, 2011, IFES is releasing the latest in a series of publications focused on technology in the elections process: Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies: A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies. Written by Ben Goldsmith, Senior Electoral Advisor, the guide sheds light on the factors to consider before introducing electronic voting and provides a model of good practice for the conduct of feasibility studies. Below is an excerpt of this publication.
Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies: A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies will be available for download at www.Ifes.org on June 8th. The first publication in the series, Direct Democracy: Progress and Pitfalls of Election Technology, edited by Michael Yard, can be downloaded here.
Electronic voting and counting technologies are being increasingly used around the world. India, the world’s largest democracy, now uses electronic voting machines exclusively for national and provincial elections. Brazil, Belgium and the Philippines also use electronic voting or counting technologies for all of their national elections. Countries such as Estonia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Russia and the United States are at various stages of piloting or partially using electronic voting and counting technologies, including Internet voting.
Some countries, however, are moving in the opposite direction. In 2008 the Netherlands, after several decades of increasing use of electronic voting machines, decertified all of its machines and moved back to paper balloting. Germany likewise recently banned electronic voting machines that were already in use, and in Ireland €52 million worth of electronic voting machines were bought but used only for a small pilot project. Furthermore, the use of electronic voting and counting technologies in the United States is deeply controversial and generates fierce debate between advocates and opponents of these technologies.
How are we to reconcile these very different conclusions about the suitability of electronic voting and counting technologies? Which is the right approach for a country considering these technologies, and when is it advisable to adopt them? The answer is, of course, that there is no one answer.
The factors which may push one nation toward an electronic voting or counting technology may not be present for another nation, or may indicate a different solution. The challenges of moving paper ballots around large countries such as Russia and Kazakhstan make the use of electronic voting technologies potentially beneficial on logistical grounds. The existence of a smart ID card with digital signature for the majority of the population in Estonia makes the use of Internet voting more feasible. The Philippines adopted an electronic counting solution to deal with issues related to fraud during the counting process.
The factors that argue for or against the use of electronic voting or counting technologies in a particular country will have many different sources, including legal, cultural, political, logistical and environmental considerations. IFES’ Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies: A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies provides a framework for conducting a full assessment of whether electronic voting and counting technologies are appropriate for a particular electoral process.
IFES’ guide provides a step-by-step approach to deciding whether or not to implement these technologies. It stresses that proper consideration should be given to all factors affecting the adoption of voting and counting technologies and that all stakeholders must have an opportunity to understand and express opinions during the process. As Thad Hall argued in a presentation at the EVOTE2010 Conference, it is not the technology that is used that matters, but the way in which the technology is implemented that ultimately determines the success of the election technology project.
Stages of a Feasibility Study
Just as electoral systems vary among countries, feasibility studies for voting and counting technologies will be different. The steps outlined in IFES’ guide are recommendations and should be adapted for each electoral context. Nevertheless, the four key stages presented here act as a model of good practice for the conduct of feasibility studies.
Stage 1: Decision in Principle — This critical first stage establishes the objectives sought through the introduction of new technology and against which any potential solutions will be measured. In this stage, the technical and financial feasibility of introducing electronic voting and counting technologies will be evaluated. A determination should be made whether the benefits of the technology are sufficient to justify new costs. Another important component of this stage is an assessment of stakeholder receptiveness to the introduction of electronic voting and counting technologies.
Stage 2: Pilot Prerequisites — While the inclination may be to jump straight into a pilot project, there are a number of prerequisites and parameters that need to be established beforehand, such as identifying the mandate of the pilot project, passing legislation that enables the pilot to be conducted, developing requirements and technical specifications for the solution being tested, and securing funding for the pilot project.
Stage 3: Pilot Project — The purpose of a pilot project is to demonstrate how a product or solution performs in practice. In the context of electronic voting and counting technologies, it should be used to determine that the solution(s) piloted operate as expected, proposed benefits can be achieved and cost estimates are accurate. It also should help identify possible improvements and assess reactions from key stakeholders, particularly voters.
Stage 4: Decision on Adoption — A number of general conclusions and next steps may be reached as a result of the pilot project. If the project demonstrates that electronic voting or counting technologies work effectively and deliver significant benefits to the electoral process, the recommendation may be to proceed with the full-scale implementation of the technology. Alternatively, the project may indicate further testing is needed before making a decision on adoption, or that the products being piloted are not suitable for that particular electoral context.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The stages outlined above may suggest a feasibility study follows a linear path. In reality, some studies never make it beyond the first stage in the process because it is clear electronic voting and counting technologies do not suit the electoral environment. Other electoral situations may see several iterations of the pilot project stage as requirements and technologies are refined over time. Even when the pilot project endorses full adoption of the new technology, its implementation may be spread over multiple elections.
Reaching an informed decision on the possible use of voting and counting technologies may take considerable time. Any shortcuts in the deliberation process may result in adopting a technology that does not suit the electoral context or in taking a decision without the support of key stakeholders. Either of these results can seriously undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process.
Two final points should be made about the feasibility study process. First, confidence in a voting system is essential if the results are to be accepted and elected institutions perceived as legitimate. This guide seeks to apply procedures and mechanisms that are open and transparent. The guide also attempts to ensure that the process of piloting — and potentially adopting — electronic voting and counting technologies does not undermine the trust and confidence of stakeholders in the electoral process.
Second, public discussion is of paramount importance in the decision-making process. The guide seeks to involve as many stakeholders as possible in consideration of electronic voting and counting technologies. Keeping the process open and making details accessible to stakeholders will promote informed debate in the public arena as well as among decision makers.