Election Recount Calls Highlight Advantages Of Blockchain Voting

Legal, social and political systems systematically lag behind technological advancement. This is a historical trend that has the potential to polarize societies, create more conflict and increase the costs of bureaucratic processes. Nevertheless, with the advent of the “information era”, decision makers across the board should have realized by now that there are enough tools available to overturn this trend once and for all. They should start with the outdated voting technologies, which are making headlines once again. Blockchain voting seems to be reasonable and secure enough to prevent the whole vote recount frenzy that the US might be getting itself into over the coming days.

Is it the Year 2000 all over again?

US presidential elections can be contentious. The Electoral College system allows for candidates that get a smaller share of the popular vote to win the election. It happened in the year 2000 when Vice President Al Gore lost Florida to George Bush by a few hundred votes. Despite winning the popular vote, Bush got more Electoral College votes with his victory in Florida, and became the 43^rd President of the US. Gore challenged the vote and demanded a recount, which just confirmed the results.

This year, the election cycle was even more contentious. Donald Trump pulled off an electoral surprise and beat Hillary Clinton – through the Electoral College system. Clinton still managed to get around 2 million more votes than Trump, but the latter just won enough battleground states to flip the election. Trump won some of these states by a razor thin margin of just a few thousand votes, so now there are voices calling for a recount.

Blockchain Technology to the Rescue

This is exactly where technology can help solve the problem, although many would say technology created it in the first place. Three of the states that Trump – the Republican candidate – narrowly won, have voted for Democrats consistently for the better part of the last 30 years. Two of these states – Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – use machines to register the vote, and in many cases these machines do not print a paper ballot confirmation. These machines can be hacked, despite the fact that they are not connected to the internet. Blockchain-powered voting could eliminate the threat of voter fraud through hacking.

Blockchain Voting, Recounts and Hacks

If these US states had their voting systems properly programed and secured through blockchain technology, there wouldn’t be any reason to doubt the results. Blockchain voting technology beats the machines insofar as security is concerned, and it also provides other key advantages such as:

• The ability to audit the voting process quickly.
• Ballot authentication through the same system that authenticates cryptocurrency transactions.
• Officials can count blockchain-powered votes accurately and faster.
• Election officials can conduct recounts quickly if they need to.
• Blockchain-powered votes are also cheaper to recount – and could be cheaper to cast as well.
• Absentee balloting would also be cheaper and more efficient.
• Blockchain-powered voting can help increase voting participation.

The Technology exists, and the Republicans already used it!

In fact, the Republican Party experimented with blockchain voting during the primaries in Utah, because Republicans wanted to increase voter turnout. Security experts warned the GOP not to go ahead with blockchain voting, but the experiment had every element it needed to succeed. Experts used cryptographically secured, blockchain mounted ballots to prevent hacking, monitor inconsistencies and allow voters to check that their vote went to the candidate they chose. If by any chance a hacker would have re-routed a vote, voters would be able to report the inconsistencies.

Blockchain Voting Pros Outnumber Cons

Despite all the security measures, there is still a chance that a hacker could steal ballots the same way they can steal bitcoin. The real challenge with blockchain voting is precisely to educate voters about these security risks and how the system works. It might take a few tries until voters understand that they have to keep their blockchain ballots safe, like in some kind of ‘cold storage’, and only connect it to a computer when they are going to vote. It will also take some time until all the members of the electorate can understand how to cast a blockchain vote, but it is worth a try. Trusting people to oversee the process is much better than trusting a centralized authority to guard the interests of the voters and make sure the process is as flawless as possible.

Bridging the Gap

In order to overcome the possible pitfalls of blockchain voting, voters could be asked to run a simulation. The results of the simulation can be used as polling data as well, effectively killing two proverbial birds with one blockchain stone. There is no doubt that blockchain voting is a promising solution for all the potential uncertainties that are now casting a shadow over the balloting in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The technology exists, it has been used before successfully and it is worth a try. Electoral authorities and officials should take this technology seriously. They should be investing in teaching the population how to use it instead of wasting resources on recounts. It is time to solve this problem once and for all.