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 21st Century.
digitalvote.wordpress.com 