Winning back the youth via blockchain online voting
That voting is important, is a given. So important that we, as a society, hold dear to our hearts that this democratic process should be safe, transparent, accurate and inclusive of everyone old enough to vote. So how can we accept the fact that more and more young people of voting age are feeling disenfranchised and largely absent from national elections?
Today’s digital natives have grown up in a world of screens and electronics. The traditional paper and pencil convention is considered antiquated and, to some extent, ridiculed. In fact, research across the globe has found a growing reluctance amongst young people to exercise their right to vote in elections. In effect, this signals a weakening of our democratic principles.
Yet, in this day and age, most countries still insist on in-person, paper balloting. Coronavirus, of course, made us rethink these conventions, but it brought only a step-change — a move to voting-by-mail. So how is it Estonia is the only country to fully embrace online voting?
E-voting isn’t new. It’s been around for years, and dozens of companies offer an electronic voting solution. However, a quick online search returns several well-known voting scandals. To name a few: the Irish voting machine scandal of the early 2000’s and, more recently, the scandal surrounding the last US election and the Dominion e-voting machines. (Of which, it must be noted, there has been no proof of irregularities or corrupted machines.)
Enter blockchain
Blockchain is no longer a new technology. It’s been tried and tested across the world with various applications, and not just NFTs (those apes are pretty cool:-)). At Concordium, we believe the blockchain’s inherent benefits, which include transparency, immutability and security, would go a long way to not only reducing (if not eliminating) voter falsification, but also minimising costs and streamlining processes. So why, in 2020, did MIT reject the idea of e-voting on the blockchain based on it causing more issues than it solves?
MIT researchers claimed that internet and blockchain-based voting would greatly increase the risk of undetectable, nation-scale election failures, that it would have little to no effect on voter turnout, and that it would not give people the meaningful assurance their votes had been counted as they were cast, and not altered or discarded in some way.
Today’s public and permissionless blockchain technology is totally transparent, validated by a decentralised group of validators, and based on a consensus mechanism that ensures data isn’t tampered with. Once a block is finalised it’s supposed to be unalterable, but that’s not always the case. The data is secure due to both decentralisation and the scientific cryptographic foundation of the blockchain.
However, there are some possible downsides to blockchain voting, which if not handled properly can use blockchain to manipulate the results of any voting mechanism. These include:
1) Voting manipulation — compromise of the systems if the access or keys fall into the wrong hands.
2) Accessibility — the digital divide remains, and not everyone has access to the internet or mobile devices.
3) Fear of intervention or the lack of anonymity — i.e that systems track both the person and their vote.
A new world on the horizon?
In February, PHI Inc. and the Concordium Foundation announced a partnership to develop a next-generation, blockchain-based voting system. It will run on the Concordium blockchain and apply identity management at the protocol level. Govote is unique in that it uses blockchain technology and zero-knowledge proofs to provide voting rights, privacy, voter anonymity, and tamper-resistant voting results.
How it works
- Combatting vote manipulation — the Concordium blockchain requires a person to authenticate and identify themselves via passport, local ID, or other photographic documents before they can use or access the blockchain to vote. This data is stored with a third-party identity provider.
- Validating votes — using zero-knowledge proof (ZKP), the system authenticates it is the user making the vote.
- Security — the vote is recorded on the blockchain, but the identity of the individual is not. Concordium’s 2-layer consensus mechanism ensures fast, true finality without the possibility of rollbacks, all in a fraction of the time of other blockchains.
- Opening up accessibility — access can be enhanced via voting machines, as well as through other internet and mobile devices.
Govote, by PHI, aims to ensure safe and fair digital voting. Govote has already been chosen as a governance vote for a community of about 10,000 supporters to support participation in elections by young people in Japan. It will be used as a vote of confidence for councillors and new candidates, and as a decision-making tool for community-based political activities.
Takashi Oka, Co-founder of PHI commented, “PHI team will be a bridge between Web2.0 and Web3.0, which will greatly contribute to the development of the blockchain space. Behind the slow progress in the use of public blockchain by companies and public cases, there is a very high hurdle to meet the regulatory requirements such as AML/CFT. On Concordium, it is possible to develop applications/services that solve this problem by utilizing the ID function to achieve both identity verification and privacy.”
To learn more about the Govote initiative, click here. To learn more about Concordium’s Identity Layer, click here.
