The Social Impact of Computer-Mediated Voting – 1. Introduction – The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Arnold B. Urken

Abstract: Computer-Mediated voting raises concerns about the traditional notion of privacy, the timing of voting processes, and the reliability of voting media. But these modes of voting may actually increase – not decrease – the options for individual expression of opinion and individual exertion of control in collective choice processes.

Individuals can use Computer-Mediated voting to control the degree of privacy associated with the communication of their preferences. This control can allow them to share information to exert influence without compromising their identities. Moreover, instead of passively relying on the integrity of a voting process, voters can audit voting records themselves to insure that their votes were recorded and counted correctly.

Asynchronous voting can be used as a means of maximizing the importance of individual participation and increasing the information voters have to render decisions. Although sequential voting is typically seen as a condition that fosters manipulation of collective outcomes, the complexity of Computer-Mediated participation will make it practically impossible to control outcomes, particularly if participants can change their votes.

The reliability of Computer-Mediated voting is already an important issue in United States elections. This abstract analysis of voting procedures may make analysts and citizens more aware of underlying problems of reliability involving the voting rules used to communicate information about individual preferences. This awareness reveals a potential role for decision support systems in enhancing individual expression and augmenting individual options for control in collective choice processes. These possibilities may spread into political life as Computer-Mediated communication evolves in business and organizational environments.

1. Introduction

Since voting is a central concept in most definitions of “democracy,” theorists frequently debate the merits of different voting methods (Riker, 1983). These arguments usually follow a normative or descriptive approach to the problem of assessing the social impact of voting systems. The same pattern can be found in contemporary assessments of the impact of Computer-Mediated voting on society. Although both approaches are potentially complementary, the first one emphasizes what one ought to do and looks at computer technology as a means to a presumed end. The other approach simply describes the results of using new media to vote and then explores the implications of these consequences for achieving postulated objectives.

This paper follows the second approach by focusing on how technology will change options for voting from the viewpoint of the individual voter. This focus explicitly rules out some issues that are often encountered in assessments of the social impact of Computer-Mediated voting. In particular, issues such as “access” and “democracy” are not considered (Gould, 1989). Why? Intuitively, greater access and more democracy seem appealing, but it is not clear that increasing access is necessary to have more democracy, particularly if “democracy” is measured by the character of social outcomes instead of the form of participation. In fact, instant access to public referenda may be counterproductive if voters are poorly informed. For according to one theory of democracy, in the long run, a large number of uninformed voters can have a lower probability of making an optimal choice than a smaller number of voters (Urken, 1988). Moreover since mass participation could produce information overload, the quality of “democratic” decision making might be unacceptable.

In any case, regardless of one’s conception of democratic objectives, analysis must eventually determine if any given set of voting rules is feasible to use and is consistent with stated objectives. Moreover, focusing on options for individual expression in Computer-Mediated environments leads us to see what might happen in groups, organizations, and society as an outgrowth of individual behavior. From this perspective, we can identify the conditions that are required to make certain options feasible. And we can avoid assuming that new voting patterns will emerge simply because they seem appealing or that new modes of voting are necessarily desirable.

Focusing on individual voting options is also significant because it highlights issues that must be taken into account in designing on-line environments. Frequently, these matters are counter-intuitive and do not become apparent until voting is used to carry out a particular decision task in the context of a specific technological situation. Of course, until new systems are actually developed and refined, our knowledge must remain conjectural and tentative. And theoretical possibilities for reform must be carefully tested before they are adopted. Nevertheless, it is important to begin thinking about voting in this way to make sure that traditional rights are protected – and even extended – when hardware and software are developed. Unless professional developers are guided by public debate about software and hardware standards, there is a danger that traditional individual rights will atrophy and that opportunities for augmenting individuality will be missed.

This assessment of the impact of Computer-Mediated voting is based on a simple model of the voting process presented at the beginning of section two. The remainder of the second section is devoted to describing four changes in voting processes that computer-mediation will make possible. These descriptions address the quality of privacy, the asynchronous nature of decisions, the reliability of voting tools, and decision support in future voting processes. Section three discusses some implications of these predictions.

Back to the top

Go to: 2. Electronic Voting and Options for Individuality

Home > Research Resources > Computing Security > The Social Impact of Computer-Mediated Voting

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society