Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Norway Scraps Online Voting

Posted by Soulskill on from the will-now-elect-officials-through-online-petitions-instead dept.

An anonymous reader sends news that Norway will no longer experiment with online voting: [T]he trials have ended because, said the government, voters' fears about their votes becoming public could undermine democratic processes. Political controversy and the fact that the trials did not boost turnout also led to the experiment ending. In a statement, Norway's Office of Modernisation said it was ending the experiments following discussions in the nation's parliament about efforts to update voting systems. The statement said although there was "broad political desire" to let people vote via the net, the poor results from the last two experiments had convinced the government to stop spending money on more trials. ... A report looking into the success of the 2013 trial said about 70,000 Norwegians took the chance to cast an e-vote. This represented about 38% of all the 250,000 people across 12 towns and cities who were eligible to vote online. However, it said, there was no evidence that the trial led to a rise in the overall number of people voting nor that it mobilised new groups, such as young people, to vote.

28 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. What logic! by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Funny

    What logic is this? We found that although nearly a third of mathematicians used electronic calculators when they were invented, the electronic calculators did not encourage previously non-mathematicians to be mathematicians, so we threw them all away.

    1. Re:What logic! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, more a matter of "we found no evidence that this new idea actually improved things, so we decided it wasn't worth spending more money experimenting with it".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:What logic! by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To put it simple: There is a cost with no benefit.

      The cost is real money, and the benefit would be increased turnout. Without an increased turnout, there is no benefit. The fact that some people who (most likely) are already voters use the online voting is not a reason to spend a lot of money on the system.

      The fact that voters have no way of verifying that the vote is anonymous also contribute to the decision.

      As most people live within a 10 minute walk form the polling stations, adding electronic voting is not really important at all.

    3. Re:What logic! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Evidence-based governance is completely foreign to us Americans, you'll have to understand if some of us can't quite understand it.

    4. Re:What logic! by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another problem with electronic voting is the complexity. Paper ballots are simple. A mark or a hole punched through some wood pulp.

      With electronic voting, there are so many vulnerabilities. From voting machines that will change one's vote to Kodos before it even gets registered on the machine, to votes being switched in transit, there are no real ways to actually protect that info from a determined, well-heeled intruder. Paper trails are still forgable, but we have had thousands of years dealing with paper, and it requires a definite physical presence to alter results.

      This isn't to say it cannot be done, but it would require a cryptographic infrastructure from a dedicated smart card that the voter has, to cryptography at every link (so votes added/subtracted from a county would be detected)... and all this assuming the hardware maker didn't add their backdoors.

      Maybe NYC is right... time to go back to mechanical voting machines or at least pen and pencil.

    5. Re:What logic! by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Evidence-based governance is completely foreign to us Americans, you'll have to understand if some of us can't quite understand it.

      It's not that I don't agree with evidence-based government. It's that I cannot agree with their conclusion that online voting cannot encourage greater overall turnout.

      The fact that 38% of the people took a chance to e-Vote, strongly suggests that much of the population was happier casting their vote electronically, and 62% were either skeptical, unaware, or lacked the ability.

      Extremely good results, arguing strongly in favor of e-Voting, I would say.

    6. Re:What logic! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Well, it could just be politics, one or more political parties always benefits from lower turnouts in elections, and they could be in control and looking after their own interests. As I indicated, I'm American, and not Norwegian, and don't presume to know the nuance of the situation.

    7. Re:What logic! by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem was that the overall turnout did not increase. So 38% of those who would have voted anyway chose to do it electronically. As developing and maintaining a complex system that is used every second year would be quite expensive, along with privacy issues etc., making it a little more convenent to vote is just not a good enough reason. At least not at this time.

    8. Re:What logic! by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 2

      From voting machines

      There are no voting machines involved, as the online voting was done from the voters own PC. There is already systems in place in Norway to ensure user authentication (used for filign tax returns etc...), so any issue would be with the central systems. In its simplest form, it is a question of trust.

    9. Re:What logic! by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 2

      There's also the political issues with voting machines

      Just to clear this one up: In the Norwegian tests, there were no dedicated voting machines. The voters used their own computers, voting from home. Using dedicated voting machines instead of paper was never an option.

    10. Re:What logic! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The problem was that the overall turnout did not increase.

      Why is "higher turnout" a goal? Is their any evidence that countries with high voter turnout are better governed? Low voter turnout should mean that most people are generally satisfied with the government, and most political choices are closely clustered around the consensus opinion. Or it could mean that people feel the system is corrupted and their vote doesn't matter. In the latter case, changing the method of voting won't fix the problem.

    11. Re:What logic! by RobinH · · Score: 2

      Electronic voting (i.e. voting machines) has its own set of serious issues, but this is about Online voting (i.e. from a home/office computer) which adds way more problems than just electronic voting, not the least of which is vote-selling. How might an employer treat two employees differently if one of them could prove that he/she voted the way the boss liked? What about a spouse? Why not just sell it to the highest bidder?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    12. Re:What logic! by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The goal of this test was to test technology and to check if easier access to voting would increase turnout.
      If you test somethig for a specific purpose, then surely accepting the outcome cannot be a problem?

      As for the reason for the low turnout, that is a mixed issue. At least we can now assume that access to voting facilities is not one of the problems. As for the country in question, a few reasons may be a generally high standard of living combined with no major fundamental differences between the political blocks. (I live in that country, and my family all vote.)

    13. Re:What logic! by znrt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this could be it. i was involved in this experiment as a developer. i'd say that besides some specific flaws the experiment was a success. i do now know for sure and first hand that secure, private and verifiable evoting over inet is feasible, because we did it, never mind any particular quirks. i have to say i was never really sure, now i am. is it a priority? probably not. it is definitely an improvement and a good tool but for me there are many other issues that would need to be tackled first if democracy is to be taken seriously, voting electronically or on paper being just secondary. i can't help but also applaud the iniciative of those norse politicians who made this experiment possible, however i'm absolutely not confident in that opting out now accounts for minding that very same priorities.

    14. Re:What logic! by Rei · · Score: 2

      So electronic voting is expensive but paper voting is cheap? Could you explain that logic?

      The fewer people who go to polling stations, the fewer stations you need (at least in areas of at least moderate population density where driving distance would become a factor if there were fewer). There's an awfully lot of overhead behind polling stations, both before, during, and after the election.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    15. Re:What logic! by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the award for most inexplicably angry reaction goes to....

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    16. Re:What logic! by AaronLS · · Score: 2

      38% of voters considered it an improvement if they opted for that method over the other(that's not to assume their outcome experience was better). Probably in Netflix's beginning their subscriber base was only people who already watched movies, and simply found it more convenient. They may not have initially turned non-movie watchers into movie watchers. Obviously that wasn't Netflix's goal metric, but the point being that the preference 38% people showed could be an indicator that it could me marketable to non-voters to turn them into voters.

      Sometimes your goal metric isn't realized during trials, but you can gauge user satisfaction/preference as an indication of its potential. I would say getting 38% during a trial is pretty huge. Usually when you are trying to get people on board with something new it can be much more challenging. With marketing they might increase voter turnout. Obviously you have to look at the feasibility of it, and the cost is certainly a valid decision point. I just think it's a little silly to focus on one metric and call it failure based on such a narrow slice. If the cost-benefit doesn't meet your threshold and you want to bring to an end, fine, but that doesn't mean it is a failure!

      Plenty of advancements faltered on their first outing before their time because there weren't enough driving factors in place to tip the cost-benefit ratio. Some of the first hybrid trials were followed by automakers saying that it was a failure and that they'd never make one, and some of those same automakers are making them today. Never speak in terms of absolutes or history+future will make you look like an idiot. Darn, that statement was an absolute.

    17. Re:What logic! by Rei · · Score: 2

      There's countless ways, with varying levels of likelihood depending on the details of the system. Party operatives can infiltrate the other party to get counted as voters. Vote counters could be paid off or blackmailed. Ballots can be disappeared before they get to the counters and the voters listed as not having voted. Premarked ballots can be made to arrive from voters who didn't actually vote. Machines can cast false votes. People can be tricked into choosing the wrong candidate. Recorded precinct totals can be changed. Recorded district totals can be changed. Absentee ballots can be "never received". Provisional ballots are even easier to disappear. Or you can just rule them invalid without ever having to explain yourself. Voters can be kept from the polls due to hundreds of tactics, including intimidation, limited voting hours, incorrectly listed voting hours, unexpectedly early closings, bad information about where the station is, inaccurate reporting as to where a person is registered to vote, and so forth. And of course votes can be bought, sold, or pressured just as easily, especially nowadays in the age of cell phone cameras.

      Yes, I think it's disingenous to pretend that internet voting is the only system where there are challenges. And most of the things people often present as intractable problems actually have a number of very reasonable solutions.

      Millions of people every day trust their entire life's savings to online banking and investing. Yet we can't choose a freaking school commissioner on the internet because that's insecure? Which do you think most people care more about?

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    18. Re:What logic! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      User satisfaction isn't the goal. A fair democracy is.
      And internet based voting comes with some quite serious problems in that regard. In particular, someone can observe and force family members to vote a certain way..

      Unless the advantages more than make up for the disadvantages, cancelling the trials is the proper thing to do to protect the fairness and privacy of the voting system.

    19. Re:What logic! by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      That's standard in all Nordics. Additionally people staffing the stations are mostly volunteers. Here in Finland for example, you find mostly elderly (former) political/democratic activists who find its their duty to show up and ensure country is democratic with some younger people with similar goals also in the mix.

      As a result, most of the cost is logistics and paper trail. Pretty much everything else, such as buildings used, equipment used and so on is reused.

    20. Re:What logic! by mysidia · · Score: 2

      As for the reason for the low turnout, that is a mixed issue. At least we can now assume that access to voting facilities is not one of the problems.

      No... it's not really safe to assume that. First of all.... they have 3.6 million registered voters, and only 250,000 were ever eligible to cast votes electronically; secondly, failure to find evidence of a change in overall voter turnout does not mean that it does not exist.

      Perhaps access to voting facilities was also a problem with their e-Voting trials. In order to cast a vote electronically; voters needed to receive a polling card.

      The ability to receive the card through the mail on a timely basis and follow the instructions would be necessary to participate.

      Also.... this was a new unfamiliar system for both government administrators and for the public, with a learning curve.

      It is not clear at all that there would be no effect on turnout, after a broader rollout making ALL voters eligible to vote electronically, and increasing the familiarity of the public at large with the new system over a period of time.

  2. Not everything has a technical fix... by gb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, given a reasonably small country with a population relatively well concentrated into population centres and good connectivity, turnout for voting does not seem to be strongly limited by access to polls.... yes, well, perhaps the solution is not addressing the real problem ?

  3. Concerns about online voting by RobinH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised there isn't more concern about the serious and fundamental problems with online voting.

    That blog post makes two points, one about vote selling and one about security. I don't see how any online voting system could ever stop you from being able to sell your vote, and that was one of the major reasons for a secret ballot. That pretty much makes online-voting a non-starter right there.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Concerns about online voting by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Selling your vote is like cutting out the middleman.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    2. Re:Concerns about online voting by RobinH · · Score: 2

      Just to be clear (even though you may be trolling), we're talking about online voting here, not electronic voting. I do believe that electronic voting (i.e. with voting machines in a private booth) might be able to work, but it still has to generate a paper ballot which you then insert into a cardboard box on the way out. The only difference to a paper and pencil ballot is that it should provide a way of tabulating them really fast, but there still has to be a way to do a manual recount (and there should be manual recounts at a random sampling of polling stations every time).

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  4. Negative Vote Button by tippe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bet you they could have improved voter turnout if they had introduced a negative vote button, like the "Thumbs Down" button on youtube. Sometimes you just don't know who to vote for, but would be glad to use your vote as a form of protest, and to send a well-deserved message to some cretinous politician or political party.

  5. Re:Wait, trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought I saw Euro-Slashdotters criticizing the US for still having physical ballots

    You seem to have thought wrong. All the criticism I've seen is Europeans asking why the US finds it necessary to invest in mechanical ("hanging chads") and electronic ("whoops it voted for the other guy", "whoops we got hacked") voting machines when we're doing just fine with pencil, paper and humans counting. Europe (The EU27) just had European elections where the entire ballot was almost entirely done with people scratching graphite onto dried wood pulp. Somehow, we managed.

  6. A smart move by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

    Over a decade ago, there was a GNU project for internet voting. With no financial incentive, the driving force was a belief that there would be a benefit in making voting easier. The project was abandoned after they realized how difficult creating a secure, reliable and anonymous internet voting system actually is.

    The founder of the project quotes Bruce Schneier as saying, "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers."

    Of course, if someone here wants to show their credentials and explain why Schneier is wrong, I'm sure many of us would love to hear their reasoning.