Prerequisites
An excursion into history showing the events and the emotions they evoked that led to the development of an online voting system. An examination of the problems that have prevented such a system from existing, and the formulation of the tasks that must be solved within our moral and ethical framework.
The Beginning
Hopes and Forebodings
It all began with the end of the Cold War and the dawn of freedom in the socialist bloc. With the proclamation of the supremacy of individual interests over those of the state. With the emergence of a feeling of a vast, clear sky overhead. With the disappearance of the constant threat of atomic war, of nuclear apocalypse.
This sentiment found its reflection in Francis Fukuyama’s philosophical essay, “The End of History” [pb1] [pb2] . It seemed it would last forever.
However, the cloudless sky was short-lived.
It soon became clear that this cloudless sky needed to be defended. The threat of a war between two systems was replaced by the threat of a clash between worlds with different cultures, as described by Samuel Huntington in his article “The Clash of Civilizations” [pb3] [pb4] . By the threat of military resolution for any interstate, and even intrastate, conflicts.
The roots of these threats became apparent. On one hand, the possibility of a return to power of the old guard. Of the apologists of the Cold War. Their revenge.
On the other hand, the threat of a criminal group seizing power, one that would turn the state apparatus into an instrument of its crimes. That would turn the state into a fascist one. That would sow deep division within society.
The desire to prevent such an outcome led to the realization of the need to consolidate democratic forces and the critical importance of elections. Real elections. With a choice of multiple alternatives and secret balloting.
This was especially crucial in the post-Soviet states. The honesty and transparency of the voting process became paramount. Society needed to believe that the election result truly reflected the opinion or will of the majority.
To affirm this, many emerging democracies introduced video surveillance at polling stations, with footage streamed online. Video monitoring was used in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Albania, Afghanistan and India, Jordan and Lebanon, Brazil and Ireland, and even in Franklin County, Washington, in the United States [s1] .
The Collapse of Hopes. A Catastrophe
We wanted to believe that all people were like-minded in their commitment to democratic values. But the reality was staggering. During the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia, we saw numerous videos showing members of election commissions stuffing piles of ballots into voting boxes right in front of observers and police officers. We saw the inaction of the police or their removal of outraged observers from the premises.
Dozens of such videos changed nothing. The Central Election Commission did not accept any of the arguments presented and recognized the elections as valid, and almost violation-free. No legal proceedings followed.
The role of the CEC is best illustrated by an incident during the live television broadcast of the vote count from the commission’s working screens. We saw that the total number of votes cast in one of the regions was a figure that became an infamous meme: 146 percent. In another region, it was 116 percent. The chairman of Russia’s Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, explained the appearance of 146% as a “systemic failure” in the vote count for multi-mandate constituencies [s2] [s3] .
A mathematical analysis conducted by mathematician Sergey Shpilkin showed that in these elections, the fraudulent votes allocated to the ruling party exceeded 25 percent of the total number of votes cast. Furthermore, some of these votes were obtained by reducing the number of votes cast for other parties, and some through fabricated turnout [s4] .
In the 2008 presidential election, 14.8 million of the 52.5 million votes received by Dmitry Medvedev were inexplicable. A statistical analysis of the 2016 parliamentary elections revealed similar anomalies [s5] .
In the published reports from various territories, one couldn’t help but notice the coincidence of the percentage of votes cast for the same party, accurate to the second decimal place, across multiple precincts. The probability of such a coincidence, even across just three precincts, is negligible. In later elections, even this island of credibility vanished.
Awareness of the Problem and the Genesis of an Idea
Degradation
Who, and how, could counter this entire torrent of violations, many of which were explicitly classified as criminal offenses under the existing election law? After all, the very chairmen of local election commissions were caught entering fabricated results into protocols and substituting them when transferring them to higher commissions.
How does one stand up against militants coercing voters in Chechnya, where turnout and votes for the ruling group were reported at one hundred percent? The emergence of this phenomenon gave rise to the term “Electoral Sultanate”
How does one resist an employer who demands a photograph of a ballot with a checkmark in the required box? Or a vote buyer, ready to pay a small sum for such a photograph, waiting right next to the polling station? (Numerous photos and videos of queues forming to such buyers are available online).
However, the problems were not limited to those listed. Since 2016, video surveillance at polling stations in Russia has become non-mandatory, and in 2020, there was a shift to multi-day voting and the legalization of non-stationary polling stations (in courtyards and cars). This eliminated any possibility of controlling the voting process. It completely devalued the institution of observers. It created convenient conditions for ballot substitution. A new infamous meme “Voting on Tree Stumps” emerged [s6] .
However, the most extreme form of profaning the voting process was the publication of numbers arbitrarily declared by the Central Election Commission as the official results — as happened in Belarus in 2020 under Alexander Lukashenko, who attributed to himself 80% of the votes. This occurred despite exit polls showing that Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya had won by a significant margin. This has been recognized by the OSCE PA, the United States, and many other countries [s7] .
The pinnacle of the degradation of elections has become the normal practice of barring influential opposition candidates from elections. Their arrests. And even murders.
The result has been a loss of public interest in the electoral process. Society’s self-removal from influencing its own life. Political apathy.
The Concept of Overcoming
The dawning realization of the crises crashing down upon us, and the grim understanding that it was becoming impossible to prevent a usurpation of power leading to war, compelled us to seek ways to counter this process. In the mid-2010s, we saw only one path: to transform the very nature of elections. To create an environment for the formation of public consciousness independent of the authorities. An environment that allows society to see itself for what it is. To understand which views truly prevail. To refine them and make them a pillar of a new reality. An environment that ensures the independent development of these views and a demonstration of public aspirations immune to manipulation.
The creation of such an environment had to be predicated on leveraging the achievements of modern information technology and the technical equipment of society. At the same time, it was obvious that in the process of creating this environment, one cannot rely on the organizational and financial resources of the state. Because the state could be captured by a group for whom such an independent environment is hostile.
Thus, the idea was formed to create a universal electronic system for anonymous voting, capable of operating and advancing without the involvement of state structures. A framework within which any group can discuss any issue, organize and conduct a vote in accordance with fundamental principles, at its own discretion choosing the method of registering participants, as well as the questions put to a vote or the persons being elected. In line with this idea, our core principles took shape.
At the foundation of this concept lay our faith in the common sense of society and the inherent drive of a community to realize the ideas that captivate it.
The Principles That Took Shape
Principles of Discussion
Comprehensive elections must be preceded by a comprehensive electoral campaign. A campaign that ensures equal representation of the arguments for each of the alternatives or persons being chosen.
Any participant in the discussion must have the ability to contribute arguments, correlating them with one another and with the alternatives under discussion.
And the organizer of the discussion must have the ability to regulate access to viewing the discussion and the arguments put forth during its course.
Principles of Voting
Any individual or group must have the ability to organize and conduct a vote within a community they define. They must be able to put any question to a vote or propose a choice among any set of alternatives.
The initiator of the vote must have the ability to openly define and regulate the eligibility of persons to participate in said vote.
No one must be able to influence the outcome of a vote or alter it.
The following must be implemented:
Open (Publicly Accessible) Publication of Results: Results must be published immediately after the vote concludes, with any participant being able to verify the absence of ballot stuffing, multiple voting, or the participation of unauthorized or ineligible individuals.
Voter Anonymity: A voter must be able to verify the correct reflection of their own ballot in the final results but must be unable to disclose it under coercion or for vote trading.
Protection Against Provocations: Through the ability to verify the integrity and good faith of the system’s operations.
Robustness and Security: Protection against all contingencies, including technical failures, smartphone/computer shutdowns, hacking attempts, malicious actions by users, and external attacks.