As blockchain establishes itself in the public eye as a technology capable of performing secure, transparent, and incorruptible transactions, an increasing number of countries are exploring or already deploying it in national election voting processes. 

Romania has become the first country in the European Union to use blockchain to verify votes, and in Peru, a new bill proposes using blockchain to increase the voter turnout of expats. 

With the pros outweighing the cons, blockchain is positioned to end the reign of pen and paper, but will it?

Blockchain Voting For Peruvian Expats

In Peru, on December 4, deputy Jorge Zeballos of the conservative party Renovación Popular (Popular Renewal) filed a bill to alter the voting law to allow citizens living abroad to vote via a blockchain solution.

The proposal claims that in-person voting is responsible for large abstention rates, which was at 77% in the last election, and that “with low political participation, democracy can’t be sustained or be strengthened, nor can the elected representative be legitimate.” 

In the Latin American countries of Equator, El Salvador, and Mexico, it is already possible for citizens living abroad to vote online. Still, none of the solutions found by their respective electoral commissions uses blockchain yet. 

Zeballos stresses in the bill that this technology offers greater security than others while guaranteeing privacy via encryption, automation of the identity verification process, and being “relatively inexpensive and ecological.”

In 2021, a very influential paper by MIT scholars published in the Journal of Cybersecurity profusely rejected the notion that blockchain should be used as a voting technology, stating that not only is the technology incapable of solving current security problems, but it might also create more vulnerabilities. 

“While convenience and efficiency are essential properties of election systems, just as security is, these goals must be balanced and optimized together. An election system is ineffective if any one of these goals is compromised.”

Security is a prime concern of blockchain developers, and since the paper was published, an array of new security and privacy solutions have been developed. 

What is still missing?

Discussing Zeballos’ bill on LinkedIn, co-founder of the Latam-based FinTech consulting company Next Harbour Solutions, León Lanis, commented: “While I believe it is necessary to advance towards digital democracies, there is still a lot of infrastructure missing until [blockchain] can truly ensure democracy.”

In line with the 2021 MIT view, the U.S. Vote Foundation published a technological conservative review that mentioned a series of cyber threats, such as Sybil attacks and denial of service, as to why blockchain wasn’t safe enough to accommodate a national voting process. 

However, most of the threats mentioned in the paper are unlikely to occur if the right choices are made, such as choosing a chain with sufficient nodes, and safeguards against meddling are taken: in 2018, Sierra Leone was the first country to use blockchain in the national elections, but because the votes were manually counted before being manually inserted on the ledger, there was still plenty of room for tampering.

Other boxes must be checked—such as guaranteeing voter verifiability—if blockchain is to be used as a vehicle for voting in national elections. 

These will depend on how much of the process is delegated to technology. If in-person voting continues to be required, it is not up to the tech to verify voters’ identities. 

Romania: Security On One Front Only 

In the first round of presidential elections this November, Romania was the first country in the European Union to use blockchain technology to aid in the voting process.

That same technology would have been used in the second round on December 8, but the country’s constitutional court cancelled the whole process as allegations of foreign influence surfaced. 

Declassified documents from the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) say that Călin Georgescu’s campaign, which won first place in the first round despite being practically unknown in the country two weeks before the elections, suggests that a “state actor” could have coordinated a hybrid attack to boost the candidate’s campaign and promote his anti-NATO, anti-EU, pro-Russia stance. 

On the topic of blockchain-enabled e-voting (BEV), a paper published in 2016 by the European Parliament read: “The debate is whether blockchain will represent a transformative or merely incremental development, and what its implications could be for the future of democracy.”

Following the Romania flop, it is obvious now that a transparent voting process whose results can be monitored and verified by all citizens is only an incremental development in ensuring cyber security in elections. 

Voting is a very delicate subject, and with foreign actors (amongst others) spreading false information and trying to influence results through mischievous means, it is becoming even more fragile. 

European Parliament paper notes that “It is not enough for the result to be fair and valid. The whole electorate, even if they are disappointed with the result, must accept that the process was legitimate and reliable.”

For blockchain to be deployed in voting processes around the world, it is necessary not only that it is the best, safest, and most transparent technology for the task but also that people believe it is. 

As the biggest election year in history comes to an end, the future of democracy seems more at risk than ever. While there are ways to improve it, ultimately, there must be a willingness to do so. And that, right now, is not a given. 

Share this article
The link has been copied!