Contents |
E-democracy is a large field of study – there is no all-encompassing definition (Kane, Patapan, 2004: 205). Essentially, e-democracy relates to the online activities of governments, elected representatives, political parties and citizen groups (Kane, Patapan, 2004: 205). The web sites of these organisations have a variety of functions, which include political or current affairs discussion, online consultation between representatives and their constituents, or they can be a free and non-partisan forum for discussion by citizens (Kane, Patapan 2004: 204).
E-democracy is a relatively new concept, which has surfaced out of the popularity of the internet and the need to re-invigorate interest in the democratic process (Bellamy, Taylor 1998: 92). Access is the key to creating interest in the democratic process (Stockwell, 2001: 95). Citizens are more willing to use web sites to support their candidate’s campaign drives (Franke-Ruta, 2003: A7). In the United States just over half of the population vote, and in the United Kingdom – only 69% of English citizens do so (Mercurio, 2002: 48).
The research indicates the political process has been alienated from ordinary people, where laws are made by representatives far removed from ordinary people (Bellamy, Taylor 1998: 91). A recent study in Britain suggested three quarters of those surveyed did not trust politicians to tell the truth (Coleman, 2004: 3). The goal of e-democracy is to reverse the cynicism citizens have about their government institutions (Bellamy, Taylor, 1998: 92).
Online consultations are probably the first step taken by many governments in creating an e-democracy. Nearly all governments have made legislation, case law and other information available online (for example Australian Parliament home page, Australian Federal Government web site and Queensland Legislation home page) (Queensland Government, 2001: 1). The British government and the Queensland government have both undertaken online consultations, and the Queensland government has also created an e-petition program (Queensland Government, 2002: 1).
Online e-democracy communities such as the Minnesota E-Democracy Project have been set up, which encourage participation in the political process via the internet (Sampford, 2001: 1). This web site hosted the world’s first online political debate for the race for Governor (Sampford, 2001: 2).
Online consultations do not challenge traditional notions of democracy in any significant way (Mercurio, 2002: 40). Therefore, online consultations are more likely to be adopted than the more radical direct voting forms of e-democracy.
E-voting combines technology with the democratic process, in order to make voting more efficient and convenient for voters (Mercurio, 2002: 44). E-voting (or electronic voting) allows voters to either vote by computer from their homes (described as ‘remote internet voting’) (Mercurio, 2002: 28) or at the polling station (Mercurio, 2002: 29).
a. E-voting at the polling booth
This form of e-voting is virtually the same as regular voting, but replaces the ballot paper with a computer, (Dixon, 2001: 2). These computers would only be connected to a private network and server, and would reduce security concerns about online vote tampering (Dixon, 2001: 2). Some academics view this as the intermediate point between the current paper-based system to complete online systems (Mercurio, 2002: 29).
b. E-voting online
The most advanced form of e-democracy would be voting online (or ‘e-voting’), which would allow voters to cast their votes from anywhere there is internet access (Dixon, 2001: 2). There are two forms of e-voting – the ‘populist democracy’ model and the ‘Athenian (or strong) democracy’ model.
‘Populist democracy’ model
The populist democracy model is based on the traditional notion of parliamentary democracy, where voting is conducted in the conventional way (i.e. during election time), except voting occurs online (Dixon, 2001: 2).
Governments in Australia, New Zealand, England and the US have thus-far been unwilling to implement e-voting programs (Dixon, 2002: 1). There is however some limited experimentation with these types of voting in America, with the Arizona Democratic Primary conducted online (Dixon, 2002: 3). There are a variety of problems with implementing a wide-ranging e-voting program (see E-democracy – e-voting – security and identification).
‘Athenian/direct democracy’ model
Athenian democracy is based more on the principles of the Ancient Greek democracy, where votes were conducted on every major issue facing their society (Stockwell, 2001: 91).
Before the advent of e-voting, there was no way to institute such a democracy in modern society – the logistical difficulties of having referendums on every issue ruled out ‘Athenian democracy’. However, this online technology can allow citizens to vote on every major issue of import, and can ensure “direct rule of the people by the people� (Bishop, Kane, Patapan, 2002: 62).
This proposal has not however received widespread support. The Queensland Government, in its policy framework paper, specifically rejects any suggestion that the system will be altered to include online referendums (Queensland Government, 2001: 2).
The success of e-democracy programs will be judged on the public’s trust in the technology used. A large-scale security breach on an e-democracy system would undermine the entire political process (Mercurio, 2002: 28). Therefore, without highly sophisticated and reliable security systems protecting an online voting system, e-democracy will not maintain the level of confidence necessary in a representative democracy (Mercurio, 2002: 27). Unlike the paper-based voting system, e-voting lends itself to more attacks from hackers who can get through firewalls undetected (Rubin, 2000). There is a concern internet elections could be the target of foreign governments or terrorist organisations attempting to disrupt elections (Dixon, 2001: 9).
Another issue creating difficulties with e-voting is ensuring the person logging onto the web site is the person actually voting (Dixon, 2001: 10). Coupled with the need to identify the voter, the technology would therefore have to authenticate the voter, then remove any authenticating details from the vote in order to keep the ballot secret (Dixon, 2001: 10).
Internet voting would need to progress along way before Australians will be willing to accept their vote is secure while still remaining a secret ballot.
The development of computer technology in government began in the 1960s and 1970s as a way to boost efficiency and allow more information to be stored (Bellamy and Taylor, 1998: 11).
However, as internet use expanded and governments recognised the cynicism that existed in the general public for politicians, the internet began to provide an information service, where representatives and political parties would make themselves available for consultation with the public (Bellamy, Taylor, 1998: 92). By the 1990s, each political party had its own web site (Mercurio, 2003: 23).
Governments across the world are embracing this level of technology, and are attempting to create programs in order to embrace the online audience. The Queensland Government released an e-democracy policy framework in November 2001, which called for the government to create online information services for online users for a three year trial (Queensland Government, 2001: 1).
While providing information services online has been followed by governments, no major democracy has allowed online elections (Dixon, 2001: 1). The first major online election was the Arizona Democratic Primary of 2000, where party members could vote over the internet (Dixon, 2001: 3). Security issues which have dogged the internet since its beginning have made online democracy an unsafe prospect and could result in fixed results or fraudulent elections. Therefore, a true e-voting system will not be embarked upon until the communication technology is sufficiently secure (Mercurio, 2003: 37).
Ben Fraser 11:04, 10 Sep 2004 (EST)
Ben Fraser 11:41, 10 Sep 2004 (EST)
Bellamy C., and Taylor, JA (1998) Governing in the Information Age Great Britain: Biddles Ltd ISBN 0335194508
Coleman, S (2004) 'Connecting Parliament to the Public Via the Internet: Two case studies of online consultations' Information Communication & Society, vol 7 no 1, pp 3-22. ISSN 1468-4462.
Dixon, N (2001) E-Voting: Elections via the Internet? [Online] Available at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications_pdfs/books/rbr0101nd.pdf. [Accessed 11 August 2004]
Finnegan, R, Salaman, G, Thompson, K (ed) Information Technology: Social Issues Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton ISBN 0340416696
Franke-Ruta, G., (2003) ‘Virtual Politics: How the Internet is Transforming Democracy’, The American Prospect [online], vol 14, no 9, pp A6-A8. Available: Informit database. [Accessed 7 August 2004]
Kane, J., and Patapan, H., (2004) ‘Challenge and Promise of E-democracy’ Griffith Review [Online], no 3 Autumn 2004 pp 201-7. Available: Informit database. [Accessed 7 August 2004]
Mercurio, B (2003) ‘Overhauling Australian Democracy: The Benefits and Burdens of Internet Voting’ University of Tasmania Law Review, vol 21(2) pp23-65 [Online]. Available through the Informit database. [Accessed 7 August 2004]
Rubin, A (2000) Security Considerations for Remote Electronic Voting over the Internet [Online] Available: http://www.avirubin.com/e-voting.security.html [Accessed 11 August 2004]
Sampford, K (2001) E-Democracy and Election Campaigns: Recent Case Studies From USA and Developments In Australia [Online] Available: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications_pdfs/books/rbr0201ks.pdf. [Accessed 11 August 2004]
Stockwell, S,. (2001) ‘Hacking Democracy: the work of the Global Citizen’ Southern Review [Online], vol 34 no 3 pp 87-103. Available: Informit database [Accessed 7 August 2004]
Queensland Government (2001) E-democracy Policy Framework [Online]. Available: http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/community/publications/documents/pdf/edemocracypolicyframework.pdf [Accessed 11 August 2004]
Ben Fraser 11:52, 10 Sep 2004 (EST)
