I would like to comment on the risks of e-voting to democracy in Brazil:
We believe that our work on e-voting in Brazil should be a matter of concern in both developed and developing countries. In addition to the lack of security of e-voting technology, which is very well explored by academics in both Brazil and in the developed world, we have raised some questions that need further discussion with regards to alienation, digital divide, market-driven and voter-driven approach to e-voting.
● Alienation [1]: With the introduction of e-voting both elections and the electoral processes are no longer controlled by voters, they become the property of those who run or manage them. In this case, the voting machine maker or a multinational corporation controls the whole system and the voter is alienated from the electoral process itself. The election becomes an external phenomenon inaccessible to the voter who can no longer scrutinize it. Transparency as a basic principle of democracy is eliminated, because there is not an open and transparent counting of votes. It is argued that “whoever controls the voting machines can control who wins the votes”.
● Market-Driven Approach [2]: When access to a technology like e-voting is created by market-driven forces or corporate actors and not by society itself, democracy is in jeopardy. It seems that e-voting is not affordable in Brazil and it was not a demand-driven option. The introduction of e-voting in Brazil was the result of discussions done behind closed doors, with corporate actors celebrating high revenues, and not the result of research work and discussions with the Brazilian society. At this moment, it is imperative to identify and assess the risks of e-voting machines to democracy.
● The Voter-Centered Approach [1]: As the fields of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) advance, the opportunities for participation in the information systems development have expanded considerably. In the development of an electronic voting system, the voter or citizen participation is of fundamental importance in the process of dialogue. In this case, we have diverse voices of all interested parties. There is need to focus on the humanization of the electronic voting system so that it can be developed under a more elaborated socio-political approach, expanding the concept of user-centered to a citizen or voter-centered approach. Let us avoid an approach that means the use, and abuse, of the user of the system..
● The Digital Divide [2]: The rhetoric of the digital divide does not take into account political and social inclusion. It addresses “participation in the digital economy” issues only. It is argued that the discourse of the digital divide has failed to capture the picture of inequity and alienation. If we reformulate the conceptualization of the digital divide, the problem of “access”, as the heart of digital equity, began to emerge.
[2] Rodrigues-Filho, Jose; Alexander, Cynthia C; Batista, Luciano C. E-Voting in Brazil – The Risks to Democracy. 2nd International Workshop on E-Voting, Proceedings: Electronic Voting 2006, Bregenz, Austria, 2006. http://www.e-voting.cc/topics/Resources/
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I would like to comment on the risks of e-voting to democracy in Brazil:
We believe that our work on e-voting in Brazil should be a matter of concern in both developed and developing countries. In addition to the lack of security of e-voting technology, which is very well explored by academics in both Brazil and in the developed world, we have raised some questions that need further discussion with regards to alienation, digital divide, market-driven and voter-driven approach to e-voting.
● Alienation [1]: With the introduction of e-voting both elections and the electoral processes are no longer controlled by voters, they become the property of those who run or manage them. In this case, the voting machine maker or a multinational corporation controls the whole system and the voter is alienated from the electoral process itself. The election becomes an external phenomenon inaccessible to the voter who can no longer scrutinize it. Transparency as a basic principle of democracy is eliminated, because there is not an open and transparent counting of votes. It is argued that “whoever controls the voting machines can control who wins the votes”.
● Market-Driven Approach [2]: When access to a technology like e-voting is created by market-driven forces or corporate actors and not by society itself, democracy is in jeopardy. It seems that e-voting is not affordable in Brazil and it was not a demand-driven option. The introduction of e-voting in Brazil was the result of discussions done behind closed doors, with corporate actors celebrating high revenues, and not the result of research work and discussions with the Brazilian society. At this moment, it is imperative to identify and assess the risks of e-voting machines to democracy.
● The Voter-Centered Approach [1]: As the fields of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) advance, the opportunities for participation in the information systems development have expanded considerably. In the development of an electronic voting system, the voter or citizen participation is of fundamental importance in the process of dialogue. In this case, we have diverse voices of all interested parties. There is need to focus on the humanization of the electronic voting system so that it can be developed under a more elaborated socio-political approach, expanding the concept of user-centered to a citizen or voter-centered approach. Let us avoid an approach that means the use, and abuse, of the user of the system..
● The Digital Divide [2]: The rhetoric of the digital divide does not take into account political and social inclusion. It addresses “participation in the digital economy” issues only. It is argued that the discourse of the digital divide has failed to capture the picture of inequity and alienation. If we reformulate the conceptualization of the digital divide, the problem of “access”, as the heart of digital equity, began to emerge.
[1] Rodrigues Filho, Jose; Gomes. Natanael P. E-Voting in Brazil – Exacerbating Alienation and the Digital Divide. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on e-Government, Marburg, Germany, 2006.
http://www.academic-conferences.org/eceg/eceg2006/eceg06-abstracts.pdf
[2] Rodrigues-Filho, Jose; Alexander, Cynthia C; Batista, Luciano C. E-Voting in Brazil – The Risks to Democracy. 2nd International Workshop on E-Voting, Proceedings: Electronic Voting 2006, Bregenz, Austria, 2006.
http://www.e-voting.cc/topics/Resources/