E-voting was introduced by politicians in the development of e-participation and e-government (Jan and Tai, 2007, pp.93-101). According to eGov Stakeholder Consultation (2005), 64% of people believe that e-participation and e-voting will help democratic philosophy by increasing turnout as result of simplicity. There are many advantages which motivate the introduction of I-voting, mainly its transformation to mobility, automated system and its support to ‘green’ IT. Each of these advantages is explained as follows.
3.3.1 Transformation to mobility
Saco (2002) and Alvarez et al. (2007) claim that the use advanced technologies could facilitate a successful voting process in remote or overseas sites. The rapidly expanding pool of voters from various locations, from cities, provinces, remote areas and even overseas, implies a need for creating ways to make the process of voting relatively easy, leading to a projected increase in voters' turnout. By these means, groups of people who are normally not found to participate in elections such as people overseas, young voters, elderly and people with disabilities can also be catered for (Alvarez, Hall and Roberts, 2007). Moreover, logistical challenges are one of the main variables to strengthen the need for I-voting.
Dictson and Ray (2000) claim that I-voting would enhance voters’ convenience to vote remotely from any place and at any time through a secure channel. Also it is believed that the election committee could extend the voting period for a couple of days with minimum cost, unlike in paper-based voting which requires public service buildings as polling stations. In addition, voters can vote without the need to be restricted to attending their local polling station (Trechsel and Mendez, 2004; Kent, Harrison and Taylor, 2006).
Additionally, I-voting can cater for a population often less attracted to the elaborate traditional voting process, and capitalise on the use of technologies, gadgets and trends that mostly appeal to the young, hence significantly including them in the election process (Trechsel and Mendez, 2004; Kent, Harrison and Taylor, 2006).
3.3.2 Transformation to automated system
Administrative efficiency is also another advantage of I-voting. Ballot production and distribution will be eliminated in this process, hence removing previously inevitable waste of staff and money as a consequence of unnecessary production and, at times, over-production. In cases of I-voting, staffing costs for polling stations could be reduced, especially during the counting stage where computation is done electronically since voting areas will be populated by stand-alone voting machines (Dictson and Ray, 2000, p.4; Kent, Harrison and Taylor, 2006).
I-voting can also shorten the time needed to produce the final tally and reduce counting errors in the voting process as intelligent software is used to prevent over-voting or under-voting (Gibson, Nixon and Ward, 2003; Trechsel and Mendez, 2004;). Furthermore, I-voting would not allow ineligible voters to vote. (see Authentication, section 3.4.1).
According to Gibson (2001) and Grant and Chau (2005), I-voting is less costly than paper voting and it is accurate, easy to adapt to traditional voting techniques and expected to increase the level of participation since it reduces physical barriers which prevent voters from reaching polling stations and allows convenience to vote at any time and easily without the need to go to them (Dictson and Ray, 2000).
In contrast traditional voting in the USA has experienced a reduction in the level of participation from 63% to 50% in 1960 and 1996, respectively, and there were practical difficulties and annoyance with registration, long queuing and transportation, which might reduce voter participation (Bonetti, 2000; Bonsor, 2004). Voters who faced these problems did not find the voting process effective and precise.
Chapter 3: Literature Review and Current Systems Review
3.3.3 Transformation to ‘green’ IT
Since technology is rapidly spreading all over the world, from the industrial sector to the basic home setup, this has, in turn, increased the demand for energy. However, ICT is among the fastest growing sectors of energy use and even though one of its main advantages was that it was an alternative to the more energy consuming industrial processes of the past, it has now become a danger to the energy sector also. Currently, it is estimated that the global carbon emissions of ICT industries are at 2 to 2.5% of the total world carbon emissions, very close to those of the airline industry (Green IT, 2010). This percentage rises in the developed countries to 5 to 6%. Also, the energy costs in many IT budgets are slowly rising from a previous low of below 10% to a perceived future peak of over 50% (Green IT, 2010).
This definitely warrants a closer look at green IT and its perceived green advantages. One of the obvious advantages of green IT is that it is clean and slows down the effects of global warming through the general reduction in CO2 production (Harris 2008, p. 71). Thus, it has become necessary for the public to be educated on the real effects of these seemingly lifesavers when it comes to the environment and how society may take responsibility. Approaches to ‘green’ IT are many and can be broadly categorised into two main areas: optimisation in the IT software and management of power use by the various machines (Sam, 2008, p. 24). There are also other approaches that are less technology based, such as the recycling of materials and the enforcement of various employee regulations in IT companies. The above are just a few of the many strategies that may be used to achieve energy conservation and actually realise the true benefits of using ‘green’ IT as a means of saving natural resources.
Likewise, I-voting can support ‘green’ IT since it shifts the voting process from a manual system towards a computerised, remote voting system. I-voting will help to go green with the reduction of a huge amount of paper consumed in the traditional paper- based voting system. However, there comes the need to ensure optimisation in the IT software and power usage. This would could be reduced either by human beings being responsible enough to carry them out, or there can be the alternative of installing special sensors that will be able to interact automatically with control systems that will shut down power when it is not in use or after a certain number of hours.
In the same vein, the management of individual IT companies should make the effort to purchase products that use advanced power management devices and software such as ASICs, PMICs and VRMs, among others (Kevin, 2003). Another alternative may be the use of energy-star equipment, popularly known as e-star, which maximises energy use and has very little wastage. When these steps are taken, there will not only be a reduction in energy use but also a reduction in CO2 emissions per voter. This was a great motivation for the researcher to promote I-voting for a green, healthy environment for the future.
On the other hand, Gibson (2001) has commented that I-voting might reduce the number of voters because of a limitation of access for poor people, people with limited computer skills and other ethnic marginals. Hence, although I-voting should be accessible for all voters as far as possible, bearing in mind different disabilities (Boutin, 2004), ensuring accessibility might have some cost implication since it requires special equipment such as headphones and Braille keypads to assist sight-impaired voters to cast their vote without need for assistance. Consequently, use of both I-voting and traditional voting schemes would be effective where citizens would choose their preferred method to cast their votes (Mercuri, 2000). Although there are lots of arguments that support I-voting because of its advantages, some are against, since it has a lot of associated negative issues as described in the next section.
Chapter 3: Literature Review and Current Systems Review