Repeated online voting — a bug or a feature?

Should we vote only once, or should we vote whenever we want and consider only the last expressed vote?

This article explains a dilemma related to some participants reluctance in the online voting process organized by Voteme.app

In offline elections, there are considerable resources for limited space and limited time to gather observers. It is necessary to ensure fair elections. One of the core tasks of observers is to make sure that no one influences the voter during voting in a limited space.

There are no space restrictions in the online environment. Compared to an observer’s working time, the cost of servers is tiny — there is no time limits — an obvious advantage in favour of voting online. You have the freedom to vote where you want and when you want.

From a technological point of view, repeated voting is straightforward. The previous vote is cancelled and replaced with the new one, and the calculation of results takes only the most recent option.

For safety reasons, our platform uses both methods. We have a database where only the last vote is preserved and another one where all ballots are held with digital auditable signatures, if necessary.

The dilemma is — should we stick to a single vote, or you can vote whenever times you want?

A single vote is OK for offline voting, but this restriction is a risk for online. Voters can not always secure their space and polling time. For example, a boss calls all employees in a room to vote, as he indicates. If the online system accepts only one-time voting, all subordinates in the given case remain with no cancellation possibility. If the system the last expressed vote, any voter is free to revote whenever they want, at their desk or home at their convenience.

A used argument by those opposing the possibility of re-voting is that someone can influence you to change your vote. There is a small risk, but you always have the option to go home in your private space, make your judgement and change your vote. However, there is a more significant risk of influencing the choice if you don’t have this option to change the vote.

This dilemma also existed in Estonia. The President of the country attacked it at the Consultative Court and lost in 2005.

“Internet voting is available during an early voting period (sixth day to fourth day prior to Election Day). Voters can change their electronic votes an unlimited number of times, with the final vote being tabulated. It is also possible for anyone who votes using the Internet to vote at a polling station during the early voting period, invalidating their Internet vote. It is not possible to change or annul the electronic vote on the Election Day. A comparison of the cost-efficiency of the different voting channels offered in the Estonian Municipal Elections (2017) concluded that the Internet Voting is the most cost-efficient voting channel offered by the Estonian Electoral System.

The principle of “one person, one vote” is sustained as the voter can potentially cast more than one ballot but still only a single vote. This was challenged in August 2005 by Arnold Rüütel, the President of Estonia, who saw the new e-voting provisions in the Local Government Council Election Act as a breach of the principle of equality of voting. The President brought a petition against the e-voting provisions to Estonian Supreme Court but lost.”

Our conclusion: The possibility of repeated voting is an advantage, and it helps you be free in expressing your vote.