Digital dilemmas: the unintended consequences of election technology

Abstract

Digital technologies are increasingly used in elections around the world. Where the resources and capacity of the state are limited, some have argued that such technologies make it possible to rapidly "leapfrog" to cleaner and more credible elections. This article argues that the growing use of these technologies has been driven by the fetishization of technology rather than by rigorous assessment of their effectiveness; that they may create significant opportunities for corruption that (among other things) vitiate their potential impact; and that they carry significant opportunity costs. Indeed, precisely because new technology tends to deflect attention away from more "traditional" strategies, the failure of digital checks and balances often renders an electoral process even more vulnerable to rigging than it was before. These observations are not intended as a manifesto against the digitization of elections; apart from anything else, we argue that the drivers of the adoption of these new methods are too powerful to resist. But the analysis draws attention to the importance of more careful assessments of the problems, as well as the benefits, of such technologiesand to the need for more careful planning in their deployment.

Digital Democracy in Indonesia’s 2019 Election: Between Citizen Participation and Political Polarization

“…More specifically on the subject of digital technology and electoral politics, the previous study by Cheeseman, Lynch and Willis [13] acknowledge the prominent development of the deployment of digital technology in elections in the past two decades, specifically in African and Asian countries. The intricate process of democratization contributes to several electoral problems such as malpractices, procedural problems or both.…”

“…While these two elements are beneficial in creating efficient, transparent and accountable election and enhance the legitimacy of elected government officials, in the highly polarized political situation, digital data is prone to be manipulated to support one competing party. It accentuates a statement by John Githongo, Kenya's former anti-corruption advocate, "you cannot digitize integrity" [13].…”

Ghana’s 2012 General Election: Free, Fair, and Flawed?

“…There has also been a huge increase in the use of biometric technology in elections over the last two decades. In Africa, roughly half of all national elections now use biometric equipment (Cheeseman et al 2018). While election observation and biometric technology clearly have promise as tools to achieve more credible elections, we must also exercise caution.…”

“…For example, despite the widespread deployment of election observers, and empirical evidence supporting the contention that observers can help reduce electoral irregularities and fraud, there is evidence that indicates observers may also "displace" fraud to unobserved polling locations. And recent evidence suggests that biometric technology is not infallible: it relies on complex procedures that are liable to break down, and may actually increase suspicion of fraud and encourage complacency toward traditional forms of election oversight (Cheeseman et al 2018(Cheeseman et al , p. 1398. Due to these limitations, we must carefully consider whether tools such as biometric technology are worth the cost, and whether they can actually achieve intended outcomes.…”

ICT and Elections in Nigeria: Rural Dynamics of Biometric Voting Technology Adoption

“…There has been a remarkable increase in the deployment of ICTs in elections over the last two decades -a trend that is most clearly visible in Africa and Asia. ICTs in the form of digital technologies deployed by electoral commissions include those associated with electronic voter registration, voter verification, and results transmission (Cheeseman, Lynch, and Willis 2018). Technology can reinforce voters' trust in the electoral process, with perceived reductions in electoral fraud (Gelb and Diofasi 2016).…”