Dynamic voting in the United Kingdom allows registered electors to exercise their fundamental right to vote at anytime, from anywhere, and to anyone (not only a popular candidate). Could this means of inclusive participation constitute the future of democracy, worldwide?

An overview of British democracy

In the UK’s parliamentary democracy, the party with more than half of MPs in the House of Commons or 326 seats forms the government and the party leader becomes the prime minister. The MPs representing minority parties sit as an opposition with a duty to challenge the government. A hung parliament arises when no single party enjoys an absolute majority. Under such circumstance the party with a large number of MPs enters into formal arrangements with other parties to form the government or seek their support to pass laws.

The present government is a classic example of a hung parliament. With no clear democratic mandate from the people, the Conservative Party also known as the Tories and the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) entered into a power sharing arrangement to form a coalition government. A coalition government are often considered undemocratic and ineffective and coalition partners invariably compromise on election pledges made to the people who sent them to parliament. This also affects quality of governance as each coalition partner would have its party interests to protect.

Fostering a fundamental change from pseudo democracy to dynamic democracy

Dynamic voting is a fundamental shift from voting once every 5 years during elections to voting whenever an eligible elector decides to exercise his fundamental right to vote. It creates a system without endorsing party representatives and encourages people to represent themselves. Static constituency barriers are broken, broadening participation. Dynamic voting methods can be implemented through digital networks and connected electronic devices that allow eligible voters to exercise their fundamental right to vote without compromising security and confidentiality.

Through the Dynamic Voting System, the top 650 (or any other number) are official “elected representatives” and empowered to perform the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of an elected member of Parliament.

As votes in dynamic voting are transferable, the electorate actively review their individual positions in relation to how their vote is routed. A vote can either be a direct or an indirect vote. While a direct vote is a vote cast directly in favor of an elected representative, an indirect vote is a vote routed through another registered member who can either be a direct and an indirect voter. Dynamic voting allows indirect voters to trace the path along which their votes have been routed and choose to retain or realign their positions to attain an alternate route.

Dynamic voting, based on a combination of direct and indirect votes not only determines elected representatives (a term used instead of members of Parliament), but also the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister will continue to have discretionary powers to extend invitations to Elected Representatives to be his Cabinet Ministers.

Technically, with dynamic voting in place, the need for an opposition or even a Parliament will be no longer required.

At the heart of dynamic voting is the “principle of social equilibrium,” which is based on the belief that Great Britain is a nation of people quite capable of being responsible, fair and just. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “social equilibrium is a theoretical state of balance in a social system referring both to an internal balance between interrelated social phenomena and to the external relationship the system maintains with its environment.”

Building stability into Dynamic Voting

The Space – Time concept built into the Dynamic Voting System ensures stability for the democratic government. The Space –Time concept is a feature that essentially allows electors decide the period the prime minister, his cabinet colleagues or elected representatives remain in office.

This system will be later extended as an e-Governance application to help the government understand and prioritize its work that primarily includes policy formulation, introduction of legislation and budgetary allocation. The e-Governance application will also allow registered electors take informed decisions on their positions they believe are in the interest of their well-being and most importantly in the best interest of Great Britain.

Dynamic Voting allows electors to cast their votes in favor of anyone effectively transcending the barriers of constituencies. Dynamic Voting will be also used by the Representatives to take decisions to amend laws, support bills and perform other functions of the parliament only for these decisions to be later ratified by the people who empower them. Dynamic Voting has an in-built referendum.

Characteristics of Dynamic Democracy

Adopt a dynamic voting system

• A greater meaningful shift from ‘by the people’ to ‘for the people’
• A need to make people more responsible for themselves – a true representation of democracy, where people are empowered
• People decide how long a government stays
• Makes democracy meaningful and governments more responsive and responsible
• Makes inclusive governance a reality

Remove constituency barriers that confine voters

• People representatives rather than party nominees
• Empowers people and makes government responsible
• Systematic change paving way for an honest and transparent relationship between governments and the people they represent
• Ensures quality representation

Replace Prime Minster’s Questions (PMQ) with a web-based interactive application, accessible to the public

• The PMQ has served its purpose well but now it is time to move forward, given advancements in information communication technology and the need for progressive social transformation
• Improved efficiency [parliamentary business] at lower costs
• Inclusive governance in policy making
• Introduce performance appraisals for MPs
• Enables voters take informed decisions
• Helps MPs focus better on tasks that really matter
• Competency standards for MPs
• To ensure MPs have / acquire the required competency levels to discharge their duties effectively

Integrated learning and development module

• People are ensured of the best public policies and can expect further improvements through a knowledge-driven system.

Philip ChristopherTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Cedar Publishing

Remember the online vote for your favorite jellybean color? Well, Red won!

The whole idea was to test public reaction to Internet voting in Edmonton. So, opinion surveys were conducted, and a 17 member Citizens’ Jury was convened to study the process and public response. The Edmonton Journal reports that after three days of hearing testimony from experts, and lots of study, just this Sunday the jury unanimously approved the further use of the technology in upcoming elections.

City officials say that Internet voting could be offered in Edmonton’s next civic election on Oct. 21, 2013.

Canadian political scientist, Nicole Goodman, reports that Internet voting has “transformed” early voting in cities like Markham, Ontario, which was the first major Canadian city to introduce it in 2003.

“Prior to the introduction of Internet voting, there were 2,000 votes registered at advance polls,” Goodman says. “But for the past two elections, it has averaged 10,000, or just over that.”

Canada is a world leader in Internet voting, with more online voting at the municipal level than any other country on the globe.  According to Prof. Goodman, it has been offered in 60 municipalities to more than two million voters.

While it’s generally thought to be favored mostly by youthful voters, Goodman says the average Internet voter is actually between the ages of 45 and 54, and has some college or university education.

So far, most municipalities use electronic voting for advance polls only, but in places like the city of Truro, Nova Scotia, not just early voting, but the entire vote is conducted online. Voter turnout there went from 19% in 2008 to 47% two years later.

“And what’s really interesting about this is that it’s an elderly community, so that puts to rest any concerns that [online voting] is too complicated for seniors, or that they won’t have the technological knowledge,” Goodman says.

Dr. William J. KelleherTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Ohio Liberty Coalition

The primary argument against online elections is the risk of voter fraud. This is the same argument that is levied against other new voting laws or practices while also justifying the implementation of new rules. Many voter fraud arguments are anecdotal or unsubstantiated, but they definitely make headlines.

Conducting an election online does create problems that may open the whole electorate up to fraud instead of the current risk of criminals impersonating individual voters. A group of hackers could theoretically assume the role of old-Chicago ballot stuffers who push an election toward a particular candidate. Regardless of where the election data is stored it could be susceptible to influence from a group of online hackers. These individuals could connect to servers through the Internet and change the outcome of an election. Setting up multiple obstacles online, in the distribution of access information to voters, and in storage of data would minimize the ability of any hacker group to influence an election.

The first step toward voter security and ballot authenticity is encryption of ballot data. In real world terms, this sends the ballot to a unique box that is unable to be opened until a series of codes have been inputted once the election is complete. An upside to this is the ability of third parties to independently audit the system for security leaks while preserving the validity of the vote. A valid vote would be one that is identical both in the online data and in the results of a third-party audit. This is not the case with electronic voting machines that are used in physical polling places. Those machines create a “black box” that can be misplaced or influenced by an unknowing or knowing third party. Although these systems are thought of as secure, they do not provide the opportunity for individuals to evaluate this claim, nor are the difficult to infiltrate. These systems are also difficult to use because they are not accessible on a PC that the voter is using on a regular basis.

Requiring multiple unique codes to access the ballot file does make it extraordinarily difficult for any hackers to change a vote. Changing multiple votes or stuffing the electronic ballot box with fraudulent ballots is immediately identifiable by computer. Each voter using an online poll not only is required to use a unique ID code, but the IP address, unique to their computer, is recorded. This creates a system where multiple codes being inputted from the same computer or computers geographically near one another is detected. Prior to conducting the election, the unique voter ID codes and their locations are recorded. If they are used outside their pre-determined area, the computer detects a problem that can be investigated by election officials. If one computer is used to cast more ballots than there are registered voters at the location it would also trigger the system as potential fraudulent activity. ID codes, by being linked to a unique voter, in a unique location, during a specific time, would be a mechanism to make the threat of online hackers or people illegally changing the outcome of an election similar to that of individuals posing as fictitious people trying to sway an election.

The last hurdle to access electronic ballots by election coordinators is requiring multiple physical keys to start the counting and for the ballots to be electronically unlocked. Generally these keys are inaccessible by election officials and can be given to judges outside the voting district. When the polls close, the judges show up to a server and physically turn a key at the same time to count the votes.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Article-3.com

A new online voting system in any state, and even more so nationally, could be prohibitively expensive if constructed poorly. There are several areas where municipalities have found an online voting system to be a sound investment as their costs decrease rapidly over the course of a few election cycles.

The initial costs of conducting an online election can be relatively high. Many online election developers will charge a fee to a contracting entity calculated by voters using the service. This practice could dissuade states and municipalities from hosting an online ballot or attempting to open it to all voters. Some voting blocs would be more likely to use an online ballot, including the disabled, current absentee voters, and young voters. Although paper ballots and physical polling places create large costs for the states, both in primary and general elections, the cost will be an initial point of contention for opponents.

Regardless of any arguments there is potential for savings by implementing online elections. In a municipal election, the city of Honolulu saved over $100,000 by allowing registered voters to participate online. One of their major cost-savers was the simplicity of counting ballots. When an election is held online, it takes minutes for results to be calculated instead of days. This election also increased voter turnout and provided local officials with a means for certifying votes and identifying voter fraud.

As stated previously in this series, an online voting system should be phased in over several elections. Aside from the implementation and increased usage arguments, a gradual phase-in allows election officials to evaluate the costs and make adjustments between elections.

Eventually, some states or municipalities could theoretically cut printing and counting costs largely out of their election budgets, saving them money and making the election process move quicker. The cost effective nature of online voting can also serve as an incentive for election holders to encourage more voters to participate.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Newscom/ZumaPress

Tomorrow’s Democracy has covered the issue of voter fraud extensively in its argument for implementing a national online voting system. The central argument against an online voting system is the assumed risk of voter fraud. Aside from the lack of factual information to support the argument, another wrench is thrown into the system when voter fraud presents itself and goes unpunished.

Voter registration is the main area where voter fraud can occur. Individuals, political groups, and clerks all have access to voter registration info and could be implicated in perpetuating voter fraud.

Recently a Republican contractor who was hired by the Republican Party of Virginia to conduct voter registration drives was implicated in a voter fraud scheme. Colin Small, was charged with voter fraud crimes after state investigators found as many as nine voter registration applications were found in a trash bin behind a store.

The chair of the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus pushed for the Virginia Attorney General to investigate the case. The Republican Attorney General has refused to investigate after the State Board of Elections failed to call for an investigation.

The head of the State Board of Elections, Charlie Judd, also happens to be a Republican official and former executive director of the Virginia Republican Party.

Brandi Lilly, Virginia Registrar has defended the decision by stating. “there’s no way to tell by party when people fill out these forms, what party they’re affiliated with, so I don’t think there’s any political motivation.”

With all due respect to Miss Lilly, the old idiom, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck should apply here. This is clearly a partisan battle, but it is coming at the expense of Virginia citizens and those who are pushing for a factual discussion on voter fraud.

Two Republican leaders are lining up to protect one of their own who has made headlines, perpetuated voter fraud, and is now walking away scot-free.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Edmonton.ca

Yes folks, no typo. The Edmonton, Canada 2012 Internet Voting Jellybean Color Election is open to anyone wishing to participate, including foreigners from the USA! Edmonton is the capital of Alberta (about 500 miles north of Great Falls, Montana). They are planning to employ Internet voting in their November 2013 general election.

You can participate in this historic experience simply by going to the city’s website  and clicking on “Registration.”  Type in, and make a note of, your password. You can enter any old address, but use this Postal Code: T5A 0A1. Then when you are asked for your ID, click on “Other document.” They will send you your Voter’s PIN in a couple of days. (Giving false registration info is NOT a crime for this contest.)

The Voter Registration System will be open until Thursday, November 1, 2012. Voting will begin on Monday October 22, 2012, and be open 24/7 until November 2d.

Vote for your favorite color jellybean: Black, Green, Red, or Yellow

If you take their survey after you vote, you’ll be entered in a drawing for $500 credit on your Master Card.

Be Bold – try it! We’ll be doing it in the USA someday!

In the Next Segment: More news on Internet voting

Dr. William J. KelleherTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Netexpert.co.za

Accessibility is paramount in establishing an online voting system. Next to accessibility, familiarity, and consequentially ease of use, are two of the most important factors to be considered when crafting the system. A new online voting system where the interface is substantially different than traditional methods could confuse voters or dissuade them from participating. The intention of an online voting system is increasing the ability to participate, crafting a system that creates a new barrier, instead of an opportunity, would be counter-productive.

Several online voting systems that have been reviewed in this column implemented familiar styles of ballots in their internet voting system. The system that Utah has put in place creates an opportunity for voters to participate on new platforms using familiar methods. In Utah’s internet voting process, deployed military members can log in from a remote military base and are presented with a ballot that looks identical to a ballot they would use at home. The troops using this system have two familiar methods interlacing to increase their ability to participate, and making the process as simple as possible.

Aside from ease of use, new electoral systems have faced obstacles in courts when they have the potential to confuse voters. By maintaining existing forms in an electronic format, or creating electronic ballots that mimic ballots at polling places, opponents would face an uphill battle when challenging online elections.

Minimizing voter confusion also serves democratic principles as it will allow more voters to participate while being fully informed on the issues they are voting for. Creating electronic ballots that could mislead a new voter or a voter averse to new technology is a sophisticated problem that should be left to the Secretary of States and to online ballot developers. Assuming that paper ballots are the ideal ballot, mimicking them online is the most favorable option for electronic voting proponents.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: Etsy.com

The initial difficulty with implementing an online voting system in any country is the number of individuals who would be disenfranchised as a result of the new methods. In the United States, where a national online voting platform could be created, at least 77% of residents are Internet users. At first glance, this does not seem like a hindrance to participation when traditional polling is also put in place. This would leave American voters with the option of utilizing an online voting system or showing up to their local polling place.

As the Estonians have been doing for the past 7 years, phasing online voting in while maintaining physical polling places allows voters to opt-in to online ballots. This creates a scenario where voters who have Internet access and will participate online do not have to hassle with showing up at a physical polling place. For many voters one day and one location can create a logistical situation that keeps them from participating.

If the United States were to implement an online voting system it should be phased in over several years. A drastic transition to online elections would likely leave voters confused and leave many without an opportunity to participate. As the Estonians have done successfully, an online option should be presented to all voters, but it should not be the only option.

Although the New South Wales election was extraordinarily successful, the Australians have a compulsory voting law in place. What could be overlooked is the number of people who were enabled to participate in the election that had physical barriers to voting prior to online elections. Making online ballots accessible to voters who live far from polling places or who have physical disabilities can only encourage participation.

Leaving the voting window open for several days presents the opportunity to vote at your convenience or change your vote following later research or statements from candidates. Although this could create a larger security risk, it would allow for more voters to cast a ballot.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Credit: University of Michigan

Alex Halderman, the famous DC Internet voting system hacker, and I recently debated Internet voting security issues.

In my last post, I presented the Canadian Model for framing the Internet voting debate. I have also posted about the many cities in Canada that use Internet voting.

But, just to be sure I am up to speed on all the issues, I’m taking an online Digital Democracy class with Professor Halderman. Our debate was during his online office hours.

Issues: What is more important to consider in the debate over Internet voting security — known facts about the many successes of Internet voting trials, or scary possibilities that haven’t happened? How much weight should be given the theoretical notion that a hack can go undetected? What evidence is RELEVANT to this debate?

Our discussion starts at 21:30 and ending at 42:00).

In the Next Segment: More on Online Voting System Security

Dr. William J. KelleherTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.

Many of these arguments have been covered in previous sections of this column regarding the existence of voter fraud in American elections. As we have discussed, not only does the threat not match up with the response, the threat barely exists at all. Dr. Kelleher has discussed the testing and security of online elections and their utility in Canada. Many of the arguments below have been addressed already without naming them prior to posing counter-arguments.

Opponents of online voting have several compelling arguments against online elections. Polling places have long been held out as locations where voters can debate issues prior to casting their ballot. This is a benefit of any public gathering during the election season. Also, online tools that voters have access to provide excellent outlets for discussion or debate. Online outlets also present opportunities for voters to expose themselves to more positions in the debate than they would likely find in conversations at polling places. Transitioning directly from an online forum to an online ballot would be similar to the transition from conversations at a polling place to going into a voting booth.

Opponents also point to the potential for voting fraud as a reason for maintaining paper ballots or computerized voting in one location. As explained above, voter fraud is not the threat that it is said to be. Most modern voter fraud is attributed to clerical errors not acts of wrongdoers on Election Day. There are steps that will be discussed below that can be taken to minimize or eliminate the possibility of voter fraud online.

These two arguments may be compelling, but when viewed as a whole, they hardly amount to reasons for abandoning online voting systems as a tool for democracy. Many voters exist within an online community where they are finding information, researching issues, and transitioning to the ballot box. Online voting systems take away the transition between mediums, and could create higher levels of participation.

Matt MetznerTomorrow's Democracy - Discussing Online Voting for the 21st Century.