In 1972, the parents of a friend of mine had a political fight. Normally, the husband articulated the families politics and the wife nodded agreement. It was a small-business, private-sector family and the views were naturally high Tory. But in 1972, that nice education Mr Whitlam had replaced the working-class, gravel-voiced Arthur Calwell and the It’s Time slogan was taking hold. The wife indicated that she was going to – shock, horror – vote Labor.
“”This family votes Liberal,” articulated the husband.
On December 2, my friend described – with enormous amusement — how his father, in the primary-school hall, had to be physically restrained by Electoral Commission staff as yelled to his wife, “”You’re not voting for that socialist”, or words to that effect.
Commission staff were patiently explaining, “”Come along now sir, your wife is entitled to vote in her own way.”
“”Not in my family, she’s not . . . .
The story is pertinent now because the ACT Government announced this week its support of a trial for electronic voting by the ACT Electoral Commission at the next ACT election. And the commission has flagged the possibility of internet voting in the 2004 election.
The Government was perhaps a tad unfortunate in its timing of the announcement in the light of the haggle in the US over it presidential election, particularly over the machine voting and machine counting.
ACT Electoral Commission Phil Green has isolated the three requirements for democratic elections: secrecy, transparency and accountability. In addition, there is a need for free and fair communication during the campaign. In liberal, rule-of-law democracies like Australia that is part of the landscape, albeit within the limits of restrictive defamation and contempt laws that do not pertain in the US.
Part of the push for electronic voting is to ensure speed and accuracy in the count. Speed is less important than the accuracy. In close contests caretaker governments can continue while the count is checked. In the US, the incumbent president continues in office for 10 weeks after the poll, so the present experience is the US should not be a big drama, despite the media hype. Accuracy is more important than speed because political legitimacy ultimately relies on it. For people to have confidence in electronic voting, you need an independent electoral commission which has the power to declare legally binding results, rather than the hotch-potch state-by-state system in the US, under which different states have different rules on eligibility and disputes, even in a nation election. With an independent commission, electronic voting could be accepted, but internet voting from home, un-supervised by commission staff, is a different matter.
The example of my friend’s parents highlighted Green’s concerns about internet voting. In theory, the security issues surrounding internet voting could be overcome. The integrity of the vote and vote-counting could be ensured with internet voting with advances in technology. However, it will always be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent coercion within families that would undermine the best security and accountability provisions in the world. But how to you guarantee secrecy. The irony is that voting at home does not guarantee secrecy and freedom from coercion by other family members or, worse, by stand-over merchants who have bullied or bribed. The bullying family members or external bribers can ensure an internet voter at home votes as directed, whatever the password or voter verification process. But voting in a public place, like a primary school hall, whether electronically or on paper, is more likely to guarantee a secret, uncoerced vote. Everyone can see that voters get a private booth to vote in and can watch while that vote goes unseen into the general ballot box or recorded electronically. The secrecy is verified by a public event. Commission staff can shoo away the most persistent politically domineering husband.