Navigating Difficulties in Electoral Tech: Recounting Argentina, Congo, and Iraq’s 2023 Experiences

The year 2023 closes leaving behind three unsuccessful electoral modernization projects. Regrettably, electoral authorities in Buenos Aires, Congo, and Iraq faced significant problems implementing technology in their respective elections. These mishaps highlight the importance of choosing a reliable technology provider.

The primary election (PASO) of Buenos Aires delivered a technological paradox: a system that was implemented to facilitate voting instead became voting’s Achilles’ heel. Local media reported that approximately 30% of the electronic voting machines failed, impacting about 60,000 citizens eager to exercise their civic right. The issues caused authorities to discard the system from MSA before the subsequent October elections.

The proper selection of a provider—one with a track record, who understands all the variables in an election and the challenges that deployments entail—is crucial. Rushing to modernize without properly vetting the vendor and the technology can be a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately, the Buenos Aires experience was repeated in Iraq and the Congo, where attempts at electoral modernization sailed into troubled waters. In the Congo, for example, the recent presidential election saw 31% of the polling stations unable to open for voters. About 45% of the polling stations that did open (after overcoming logistical difficulties) experienced problems with the voting machines. Despite the introduction of technology, preliminary results aren’t expected until December 31 (almost two weeks after the election), and the official results aren’t expected until January 10.

In Iraq’s Provincial Council elections, the election technology from Miru Systems suffered widespread failures. The Alliance of Networks and National Organizations for Election Observation reported that 70% of the voting tables experienced technical problems with their electronic counting devices, causing a significant setback on a particularly important day for officials, security forces, and displaced voters. Attempts to correct the failures by restarting the devices, according to the established protocol, were unsuccessful. The technical problems were especially acute in the Kurdistan region. All this forced the Electoral Commission to revert to manual vote counting.

Technological setbacks in elections are rarely isolated coincidences but are often the direct consequence of improperly vetting potential technology providers. It is crucial to recognize that the desire for modernization cannot compromise the process of evaluating and selecting the systems and companies responsible for the integrity of elections.

There are a number of criteria to consider when evaluating a technology provider; technical competence, experience in previous elections, success record, cybersecurity standards, and the ability to provide ongoing support throughout the electoral cycle. Attention to such details is essential for a flawless deployment, or at least one without issues that erode public confidence in the results. Not all software or hardware companies are equipped to handle complex electoral processes. As we move deeper into the digital age, selecting appropriate providers and technologies will demand even more attention to detail. Election commissions must work from a basis of fact and use objective, science-based criteria to choose the right election technology. They must rigorously vet potential vendors against a strict set of guidelines and make their selection without any undue influence. These are necessary steps for any commission looking to modernize its elections in the 21^st Century.

An alliance between electoral experts and health experts, a comprehensive solution to lessen the risks of contagion in elections

Imagen: conocedores.com

This week, elections technology company Smartmatic announced its partnership with The Infection Prevention Strategy (TIPS), a non-profit organization working to promote innovative ideas and processes to improve public health with a global scope.

According to the press release, the team is made up of electoral and epidemiological experts, and the goal is to provide electoral authorities with a set of protocols and best practices to prevent and control the transmission of the coronavirus in elections. Smartmatic has identified more than 40 stages during an electoral process where there is a risk of contagion; and TIPS has worked on scientific protocols to minimize the spread of various epidemics. This alliance must be regarded as a comprehensive solution for achieving electoral continuity.

Presently, more than 60 countries have decided to postpone elections for fear of a new outbreak of the virus, others are not clear about how to proceed in a pandemic scenario like this one we are now experiencing. Even though some countries and territories have obtained positive results in the decision to continue with their electoral processes, not all those who have taken this step have been fortunate.

A successful case, South Korea, with the aim of avoiding crowds, took a series of strict sanitary measures, which were applauded by other countries. Even United States Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on April 15 declared in a statement that “The Republic of South Korea’s dedication to democratic values ​​in the face of a global pandemic is a hallmark of a truly free, open and transparent society.” There was a historical turnout of 65.1% of the register. While in France, which also held elections under similar circumstances, turnout decreased dramatically: 55% of citizens abstained from voting in the March 15 municipal elections.

It is worth noting that each country has its own idiosyncrasy, and the measures to carry out elections in these times must be analyzed by experts both in health and in elections, and adapted to the particularities of each region. Each phase of the electoral process must be protected, both the production of ballots, as well as the voting and subsequent counting of votes, consolidation and publication of results.

In this sense, the various organizations and public or private companies must focus their resources on guiding electoral authorities in the search for solutions and alternatives that allow them to continue with democratic processes.

There is something in which commissions from different parts of the world, NGOs , academics, and electoral experts have concurred in recent weeks , and it is that both going ahead with an election as well as delaying it involve significant risks, not only for public health but also for Democracy. It is to be hoped that authorities make good decisions, and adopt the most appropriate measures to protect both aspects. The solutions, the companies and the experts are there.

Myths vs. reality about online voting in Ecuador

The pandemic will not be over in 2021, but it probably will be under control. In Ecuador, a country where the virus onslaught seems to have been rampant, members of the electoral organization ponder how to organize next year’s elections without putting people’s health at an extra risk, and avoid a pandemic outbreak.

The current Ecuadorian debate focuses on segmented face-to-face voting, remote (online) voting, and hybrid voting. The latter is presented as the most reasonable alternative, which would allow Ecuadorians to vote as in Estonia: choose between going to the voting centers and voting as traditionally, or voting online through a mobile device or computer. Leandro Querido, director of the Transparencia Electoral organization, published an article that brings clarity to the current debate amidst Ecuadorian authorities. In his article, Querido explains five myths about Internet voting, which we review below:

“Online voting is a very expensive method”

In fact, it is the opposite. According to the context analyzed in Estonia, online voting is the least expensive of the country’s voting methods. It costs one half the price of traditional voting, and is vastly cheaper than other voting methods. This was proven in a research paper led by scholar Robert Krimmer, full professor at the Tallinn University of Technology.

“Most people do not have access to the Internet, or to smart devices”

According to Statista’s recent 2020 data, no Latin American country has less than 40% Internet penetration. In fact, 67% of the population in Latin America use the Internet. This represents an important figure, bearing in mind that remote voting would not replace voting in a poll center; it is regarded as an alternative to ease the flow of people in voting centers.

“It lacks any strategies to avoid voter coercion”

Voter duress is somewhat difficult to measure if the voters are not present at the polling place. However, technology offers options to mitigate voter coercion. In Estonia, as in many countries that vote remotely, the process takes several days. During that time period, Estonians can vote online as many times as they wish, and only the final vote is counted. In this way, if a voter is pressed to vote in a certain way, he can login into the system at another time and vote again, this time in an environment free from coercion. This method was recognized by the Council of Europe as a valid voter duress mitigation strategy.

“It is vulnerable, the election can be manipulated”

In reality, electronic voting, including Internet voting, offer multiple security mechanisms, and above all, they offer the possibility of carrying out audits to validate the accuracy of the results. In Estonia, the voter can use the verification app to ensure that the vote was submitted to the system as marked or recorded. The server maintains a third-party verifiable audit trail for all votes; and is able to demonstrate to the point of tabulation that all votes were processed correctly according to the specific rules of each country. This type of auditability, together with cryptographic signatures, eliminates any chances of vote forgery, and provides a universal guarantee that voter preferences are duly captured, stored and accounted for, according to voter intent.

“Internet voting only appeals to younger voters with greater technological skills”

More and more citizens use the Internet through digital devices, and this is valid for all demographic groups, and for all ages. In Estonia, people over 55 years of age comprise the largest percentage of Internet voting users, around 25% of all online voters.

The implementation of online voting should not require a drastic change in the idiosyncrasy of the citizenry. However, it will always be necessary to implement educational campaigns that reduce the possible resistance of some citizens and leaders to the advent of new technologies.