Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Blockchain voting might boost turnout — but it threatens election reliability

Blockchain voting might boost turnout — but it threatens election reliability

"It's possible blockchain-based voting could boost voter participation rates, but there's no evidence yet it is better at preventing election fraud," argues Nir Kshetri.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Kshetri is a professor of management at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

A developing technology called "blockchain" has gotten attention from election officials, startups and even Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang as a potential way to boost voter turnout and public trust in election s.

There are promising signs that blockchain-based voting could boost turnout. The few small-scale tests so far have, however, identified problems and vulnerabilities in the digital systems and government administrative procedures — and they must be resolved before blockchain-based voting can be considered safe and trustworthy. Until then, I don't see clear evidence that system can prevent, or even detect, election fraud.


There are a few steps in blockchain-based voting, which uses technology to mirror the process of casting a ballot in person.

First, the system needs to verify a voter's identity — often by having the user upload a photo of a government-issued ID and then a photo or video self-portrait. The system confirms the ID's validity, then facial recognition software makes sure the person in the self-portrait is the person on the ID. Then the user is authenticated as eligible to vote.

Only at that point does blockchain technology enter the process. The system gives each voter a digital token that represents the person's vote and a list of the digital addresses where that token may be used. Each address indicates a vote for a particular candidate or an answer to a ballot question.

Votes remain anonymous. When a voter sends a token, a record is stored simultaneously on several different computers, making it hard for hackers to alter the vote records. After casting the ballot by sending the token, the user receives a unique code for use in looking at the anonymized online vote tally to confirm the vote was counted as intended.

Early results show blockchain may increase turnout. Many of the tests have been for informal ballots, like student government groups and community projects.

However, some election officials in the United States have held small-scale trials of blockchain voting, allowing members of the military stationed overseas to vote electronically rather than by mail.

Last year, West Virginia allowed 144 voters living overseas to cast ballots from 31 different countries using an app developed by a private company called Voatz, which is involved in many of these trials. West Virginia says it plans to continue and expand the trial in 2020. Small-scale trials were also conducted by Denver in its municipal elections in May 2018 and by Utah County, Utah, last August.

The most recent — and largest — was in September's city council election in Moscow. Because of concerns the system was not  secure, only three of the Russian capital's 20 precincts allowed voters to use a blockchain-based app from anywhere with an internet connection.

Again, the evidence showed a boost in turnout: It was around 17 percent of registered voters and included a 90 percent turnout of more who registered to use the blockchain system.

However, technological complications  barred some from voting, which led at least one losing candidate to object that he would have won had everything worked properly. That sort of problem is what's most worrying for people who hope using mathematical principles and computerized encryption will help more of the public trust election outcomes.

There are several obstacles in the way of blockchain ever becoming useful for large-scale, legally binding voting.

Most people have little understanding of how blockchain systems work. And even experts don't have a way to identify every possible irregularity in online voting. Voting on paper, by contrast, is well studied and easily verified and audited.

When a verified voter establishes an account on the system, that process creates a digital key that identifies them securely when casting a ballot. A more complex key is harder to hack, but also takes more computing resources to verify. The computational power required may make blockchain systems inefficient for voting on a nationwide scale — or even statewide in populous places like California and Texas.

The Moscow system, for instance, initially assigned keys that were too easily hacked. That opened the possibility of voter impersonation, which is bad enough. But that weakness also violated the principle of a secret ballot by letting outsiders know how each person voted.

Other problems with digital voting are separate from the underlying technologies. Even when dealing with current images, facial recognition systems, including the one used by Voatz, have high error rates, especially for non-white voters. Hackers may also try to trick the system.

The device a voter uses to cast a ballot may not be secure, either — and it's not safe to assume the computer networks they communicate over, and the servers storing the data, are safe from manipulation or even random errors.

Proprietary voting apps do not offer the public a way to know whether voters' choices are accurately recorded. Nor do they provide assurance their apps truthfully deliver their ballots' encrypted copy to be counted by election officials.

Voatz has claimed its system has been audited by third parties but has made few details available to the public. West Virginia officials who hired Voatz have also refused to reveal information about how its security was evaluated.

The company has said it would not release that information because of a nondisclosure agreement with the auditors, and for fear its proprietary design might be discovered by competitors.

It's possible blockchain-based voting could boost voter participation rates, but there's no evidence yet it is better at preventing election fraud. With plenty of potential trouble spots outside the system itself, and little public transparency within it, blockchain voting is not yet safe or ready for service.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

Rear view diverse voters waiting for polling place to open
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Open Primaries Topic Creates a Major Tension for Independents

Open primaries create fine opportunities for citizens who are registered as independents or unaffiliated voters to vote for either Democrats or Republicans in primary elections, but they tacitly undermine the mission of those independents who are opposed to both major parties by luring them into establishment electoral politics. Indeed, independents who are tempted to support independent candidates or an independent political movement can be converted to advocates of our duopoly if their states have one form or another of Open Primaries.

Twenty U.S. states currently have Open Primaries for at least one political party at the presidential, congressional, and state levels, including Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states conduct "semi-closed" primaries, a middle position in which unaffiliated voters still have an option to choose to vote in one of the major party primaries. 

Keep ReadingShow less
Voter registration
The national voter registration form is now available in 20 non-English languages, including three Native American languages.
SDI Productions

With Ranked Choice Voting in NYC, Women Win

As New York prepares to choose its next city council and mayor in primaries this week, it’s worth remembering that the road to gender equality in the nation’s largest city has been long and slow.

Before 2021, New York’s 51-member council had always been majority male. Women hadn’t even gotten close to a majority. The best showing had been 18 seats, just a tick above 35 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Voters Just Got Power in Nevada – if the Governor Lets It Happen

"On Las Vegas Boulevard" sign.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash. Unplash+ license obtained by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

Independent Voters Just Got Power in Nevada – if the Governor Lets It Happen

CARSON CITY, NEV. - A surprise last-minute bill to open primary elections to Nevada’s largest voting bloc, registered unaffiliated voters, moved quickly through the state legislature and was approved by a majority of lawmakers on the last day of the legislative session Monday.

The bill, AB597, allows voters not registered with a political party to pick between a Republican and Democratic primary ballot in future election cycles. It does not apply to the state’s presidential preference elections, which would remain closed to registered party members.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voter registration

In April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape.

SDI Productions

The SAVE Act: Addressing a Non-Existent Problem at the Cost of Voter Access?

In July 2024, I wrote about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act when it was first introduced in Congress. And Sarah and I discussed it in an episode of Beyond the Bill Number which you can still listen to. Now, in April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape. It's time to revisit this legislation and examine its implications for American voters.

Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill here for further insight and commentary.

Keep ReadingShow less