The European Union and E-Voting (Electronic Voting)

Fernando Mendez, Alexander H. Trechsel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134333028
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This is the first book to systematically evaluate e-voting from the wider European perspective. It focuses on the European experience, thereby raising key issues at the heart of the social sciences, legal scholarship and technology studies in a penetrating and interdisciplinary manner. It coincides with a crucial juncture for European integration in which the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference will discuss measures to further democratize the EU.

1 The European Union and e-voting

Upgrading Euro-elections

Fernando Mendez and Alexander H. Trechsel

Introduction

To the reader it may appear somewhat precipitate to raise the issue of e-voting¹ for European Parliamentary elections much less to compile an edited book on the subject. Perhaps it would be more prudent to make progress at the national level before even considering any moves toward offering online voting facilities at the supranational level. The sheer scale of the enterprise – the European Union (EU) is the only supranational democracy that exists today – as well as the logistical complexity, the substantial financial and administrative resource implications, not to mention the considerable technical and security hurdles that would need to be overcome, all suggest that this is, for the time being, an unviable proposition. And let us not forget the problem of the European digital divide that some have argued² could, if e-voting were to be implemented, skew political participation towards the more affluent socio-economic groups (both within and among EU member states) given that internet penetration rates vary substantially from Finland in the north to Portugal in the south and from Ireland in the west to Slovakia in the east. So why bother ‘upgrading’ elections that have been described by one prominent observer as decentralized and apathetic affairs in which a small number of voters participate and where barely any transnational deliberation on European issues takes place.³ There are, as we shall argue, some very good reasons why the e-voting/EU nexus may acquire an increasing significance and this introductory chapter is, in part, a justification for addressing the question of e-voting from an EU perspective.

A first sign as to why e-voting and the European Parliament may become increasingly connected has recently come to the fore. In May 2002 a motion for a resolution on e-democracy and e-citizenship was tabled at the European Parliament by MEPs from eight different transnational political groups. It called on member states ‘to promote electronic voting and, in particular, voting arrangements using e-voting monitored polling stations for the 2004 European elections’.⁴ A year later, in September 2003, the UK's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs directed the Electoral Commission, an independent body that reports on electoral issues, to recommend electoral regions that would be suitable for e-voting pilots for European Parliamentary elections. Both these events, and the continuing discussions on the issue in the institutions of the EU and its member states, suggest that e-voting could become an item of considerable political discussion. As the UK example illustrates, it is possible that e-voting could slowly creep on to the political agenda of the member states. And to the extent that it does, it is likely that local elections and European Parliamentary elections, which are characteristically low salience elections, will become the focal point for experimentation with e-voting pilots. Thus, it is probable that e-voting for European Parliamentary elections will, for the majority of EU member states, and especially the larger member states, precede e-enabled national elections. This is, of course, unless a remarkable popular demand emerges and a consensus among politicians is achieved on the need to introduce e-voting before the next European Parliamentary elections in 2009, enabling member states to hold full-scale national elections online. Without trying to anticipate trends in e-voting technologies, popular demand among the electorate and the willingness of political elites to introduce new voting modalities, this is unlikely to be the case. Instead, e-voting is likely to be the subject of experimentation with low salience elections (especially local elections, but also European Parliamentary elections) before tackling the riskier enterprise of first-order national elections.

What is also revealing about the two aforementioned examples are the different perspectives adopted. In contrast to the enthusiasm of the promoters of the European Parliament resolution, the report by the UK Electoral Commission states that ‘[t]he Commission does not recommend that an e-enabled element be included in any pilot scheme, as we believe that no region is ready for such innovation at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme’.⁵ This contrast serves to highlight the tension that exists among analysts, pundits and policymakers. Some observers like to focus on the transformative potential of the ICTs and give primacy to the long-term dynamics of e-voting and potential interaction effects with other e-democratic techniques. For others the focus is more pragmatic and short term, such as the significant technical and security hurdles or the logistical and financial costs. These perspectives, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is possible to be pragmatic about the short term obstacles while acknowledging the transformative potential over the longer term. Incidentally, the main reason for the Electoral Commission's negative verdict on e-voting for the European Parliamentary elections of 2004 was that there was insufficient time given the higher level of complexity of organising regional pilots as opposed to the e-voting pilots that had been previously organised for the May 2003 local elections. Nonetheless, it is helpful to note this distinction between the short-term implementation issues and the potential longer-term institutional implications.

Most chapters in this book focus on the short-term horizon although, in the final section, and in line with the distinction identified above, the authors have addressed longer-term dynamics. In many respects the contributors to this book, all of whom are acknowledged specialists in their respective fields, have approached the subject matter from a variety of different yet enriching perspectives. The following disclaimer should, however, be noted at this point: this is a book that has been largely written by social scientists and, as such, it reflects a social science bias in its overarching approach. This does not mean the contributors have necessarily agreed in their prognoses for e-voting, especially where claims with regard to potential increases in participation rates are concerned.

The rest of this chapter will proceed along the following lines: we begin by first mapping out certain conceptual and theoretical issues which we maintain is a necessary precursor to any discussion of e-voting. We then proceed to evaluate in greater detail the e-voting and EU nexus with particular attention directed to the EU's so-called democratic deficit. In the penultimate section we identify four broad issue areas that we contend will have a substantial impact in determining e-voting trajectories within the EU context. The main threads of the argument are then tied together and some further reflections are offered in the concluding section.

Conceptual frames

The issue of e-voting has increasingly become a controversial topic among political commentators, in some cases arousing great passions. But why are we thinking about it? Is it because we believe that by offering citizens new voting tools it is possible to slow down the perceived erosion of participation rates or, more optimistically, turn around the apathy that is said to afflict modern democracies? Or is there an even more ambitious agenda behind the proliferation of ‘e’ initiatives? In this section we will attempt to place the issue of e-voting within its wider theoretical context by linking it to the concept of e-democracy.⁶ To illustrate our line of argumentation, and the theoretical questions that are raised, we will return to the aforementioned motion for a European Parliamentary resolution. The initiative is interesting because it links e-voting with e-democracy and in doing so raises some pertinent theoretical questions. The promoter of the initiative, the MEP Marco Cappatto, declared at the time that democracy was the number one problem for the EU and that on ‘the specific issue of “e-voting”, the 2004 European elections are the best occasion to implement a project at the European level’.⁷ Although his ambitious goals have conspicuously not been realised, the objective of the proposed resolution is straightforward: to harness the democratising potential of information and communication technologies (ICT) to bring decision-making closer to the EU citizen. At first glance this is a desirable and relatively unproblematic objective. It argues that European citizenship ought to imply the ‘right of access’ to any public document and meeting via the internet and calls for the Treaties to be amended so that all EU public meetings can be broadcast live and archived on the internet. The aim is to increase executive accountability by employing the transparency enhancing properties of the internet to bring the EU closer to its citizens. Furthermore, the proposed resolution stated that citizens should be able to enjoy their rights of European citizenship (e.g. complaints to the Ombudsman, access to the European Court of Justice or petitions to the European Parliament) also through the internet. These and similar proposals are interesting from a theoretical perspective because they raise questions as to whether Information Rights could become an increasingly important component of citizenship. More speculatively, could this signal a trend towards an ICT-induced extension of T.H. Marshall's famous trilogy of civil, political and social rights?⁸

Although the proposed resolution is mainly concerned with transparency enhancing measures, in calling for e-voting to be implemented for European Parliamentary elections it is raising a conceptually distinct dimension – namely participation in the democratic process. Voting in elections is one of the principal mechanisms through which citizens exercise their right to participate in the political process. This is, however, not the only channel available for citizens to express their political preferences. To take an example: since the end of the Cold War, Eastern and Central Europe have witnessed a proliferation of direct democratic mechanisms within the national constitutions of the new democracies. Also over the past two decades, in both the old and the new European democracies, referendums have been frequently held. The debate on whether direct democracy should be promoted is not in any way new. It centres most prominently on the question of civic competence and splits political philosophers and theorists. For thinkers such as Bobbio there is simply not enough time in the day for voters to consider all the elements involved in each and every issue put to the vote.⁹ It follows that more frequent participation does not mean better informed decision-making. Bobbio echoes thinkers such as Burke,¹⁰ Dahl,¹¹ Schumpeter¹² and Sartori,¹³ in arguing that democracy is best served by strengthening the competitive or representative model of democracy whereby different parties compete for the citizens' vote. For scholars such as Barber,¹⁴ Budge¹⁵ or Kriesi,¹⁶ however, it is difficult to see how citizens could be competent enough to elect their representatives but not competent enough to decide about important policy issues at stake. Also, according to the participatory conception of democracy, it is through exposure to direct democratic decision-making processes that voters will increase their interest in politics and, therefore, their civic competence. Over the last couple of decades normative political theory has further developed the ‘quality’ dimension of democracy by emphasising the deliberative aspect of democracy. Proponents such as Elster,¹⁷ Fishkin¹⁸ and Habermas¹⁹ argue that deliberation among the electorate has to be maximised in order to reach ‘good’ outcomes. The act of voting should not be seen as an end in itself but, rather, as a mechanism through which preferences that crystallise from the process of deliberation are transmitted.

With this admittedly cursory review of some of the major debates in democratic theory we have outlined three (overlapping) visions of democracy, which emphasise distinct representative, participatory or deliberative elements of democracy. This brings us to the question of how ICT and its possible introduction into the political realm could alter current practices of democratic decision-making. An expanding literatu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Routledge Advances in European Politics
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 The European Union and e-voting: upgrading Euro-elections
• PART I Political outcomes
• PART II Legal considerations
• PART III Designing e-voting
• PART IV Institutional visions
• Index