The Unbreakable Code: Why Securing Online Elections Is a Myth

For years, the consensus among those who study election security has been clear: internet voting, as currently conceived, is fundamentally insecure. The complexities of securing individual devices, networks, and the voting infrastructure itself create a cascade of potential vulnerabilities that are simply too great to overcome. Vendors often claim advancements in technology will solve these issues, but experts argue that these claims consistently fail to address the core problems.

The core issue isn’t a lack of clever coding; it’s the nature of the internet itself. Unlike a paper ballot, which provides a physical record and a clear audit trail, electronic votes are susceptible to manipulation at numerous points. From malware infecting a voter’s computer to sophisticated attacks targeting election servers, the potential for interference is vast. Even seemingly minor vulnerabilities can be exploited to alter election outcomes.

A significant concern centers around voter authentication. Verifying the identity of a voter online with absolute certainty is a challenge that has yet to be solved. Existing methods, such as passwords and multi-factor authentication, are vulnerable to phishing, hacking, and coercion. This opens the door to fraudulent votes and undermines the integrity of the election.

The Role of the Mobile Voting Foundation

Bradley Tusk and his Mobile Voting Foundation have been particularly vocal proponents of internet voting, actively promoting its adoption to journalists and election officials. Critics argue that this effort is misleading, downplaying the significant security risks and presenting a potentially dangerous solution to the challenges of voter access. The foundation’s claims of secure systems have been met with skepticism from the cybersecurity community.

The argument often presented is that internet voting can increase voter turnout, particularly among marginalized groups. However, security experts contend that this potential benefit is far outweighed by the risk of undermining public trust in the electoral process. What good is increased participation if the results are called into question?

The push for internet voting also raises concerns about accessibility. While proponents argue it can help voters with disabilities, ensuring equal access to secure technology remains a significant hurdle. Furthermore, the digital divide – the gap between those who have access to the internet and those who do not – could exacerbate existing inequalities in voter participation.

Do you believe the potential benefits of increased voter access justify the inherent security risks of internet voting? What alternative solutions could address accessibility concerns without compromising election integrity?

Further research into the vulnerabilities of online voting systems can be found at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. Additional insights into election security best practices are available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Frequently Asked Questions About Internet Voting

• Is internet voting ever secure?

  Currently, no. Experts agree that there is no known or foreseeable technology that can make internet voting sufficiently secure for public elections. The inherent vulnerabilities of the internet and the complexities of voter authentication pose insurmountable challenges.

• What are the biggest risks associated with online voting?

  The primary risks include voter fraud, malware infections, hacking of election servers, and the inability to verify voter identity with absolute certainty. These vulnerabilities can compromise the integrity of election results.

• Does internet voting increase voter turnout?

  While it’s a stated goal, the impact on voter turnout is uncertain. Any potential increase must be weighed against the risk of undermining public trust in the electoral process.

• What is the Mobile Voting Foundation’s position on internet voting?

  The Mobile Voting Foundation actively promotes the adoption of internet voting, arguing that it can increase voter access and participation. However, their claims have been met with skepticism from cybersecurity experts.

• Are there alternative solutions to improve voter access without using internet voting?

  Yes, many alternatives exist, including expanded early voting, automatic voter registration, and improved accessibility for voters with disabilities at traditional polling places. These solutions address accessibility concerns without compromising election security.