Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Some pros and cons of e-voting, including risks of ID theft

Opinion

Lukić is an information privacy, security and compliance consultant at IDStrong, a credit and identity theft monitoring company.

With so much attention in the run-up to Election Day paid to potentially fatal delays for millions of mailed ballots, many Americans may be wondering if electronic voting could have been a better solution.

And there are plenty of ready answers to some of the most common questions surrounding e-voting — and plenty of ready guidance about what you still need to watch out for in the final hours of the campaign, to protect yourself and your right to vote if you intend to vote in person.

E-voting is the process by which a registered voter can submit a ballot using electronic means, instead of mailing in a piece of paper or going to a polling place. Generally, voters view their options on a computer screen and make their selections, much like taking an online survey. (They may be required to first insert some type of card into the voting system to verify their identity.) Then their votes are stored on a memory disc, in the cloud or through some other mechanism until they are tabulated.

Some more advanced systems permit voters to visit their country's election website, download and install an app for voting and then cast their ballots any time until the polls close on Election Day.

The most compelling reasons for e-voting handily outnumber the main reasons against:

This system is more convenient than the current options. It's also more private. And it costs less to implement and maintain. It is a faster method for voting and for counting votes. It has the ability to motivate more voting activity. And it can readily allow a more inclusive process, by providing ballots for individuals in different languages and greater accessibility features.

On the other hand, the drawbacks include a lack of transparency regarding how systems work, the potential risk of compromise by hackers and a lack of consistency — since many different manufacturers are producing and marketing electronic voting systems.

E-voter fraud may be committed using many of the methods for cheating in traditional methods of voting, seven of which are succinctly outlined by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank:

  • Impersonation fraud — when someone pretends to be you, or someone who's died or moved away, to vote in another person's name.
  • False registration — when someone uses a fake name or address to get on the voter rolls.
  • Bribery — when someone pays or promises to pay in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate.
  • Duplicate voting — when the same person votes multiple times in the same election.
  • Absentee ballot fraud, when someone requests a mail ballot on behalf of someone else and fills it out without their permission.
  • Ineligible voting, when a person who does not have the right to vote (by not being a citizen, for example) votes anyway.
  • Illegal assistance, such as forcing or intimidating voters at the polls.

There is an additional layer of concern regarding e-voting because it uses electronic systems to report votes. Such systems could potentially be hacked by outsiders to alter the count, fabricating tabulations after the voting ends. Additionally, if e-voters do not cast ballots in the contests where they're eligible (because of where they live) it may be easier to commit voter fraud since there would be insufficient oversight.

Beyond that is the risk of voter fraud through identity theft. One form of identity theft occurs when a scammer contacts registered voters, claiming to work for a local election board needing to "verify voter registration." The scammer may then ask the person to verify personal information, such as a Social Security number, which has nothing to do with voting at all.

Cybersecurity statistics show rates of identity theft have significantly increased during the coronavirus pandemic. Some experts estimate that as many as one in four people may wind up a victim of identity theft. With more transactions occurring online, it may be easier for identity thieves to steal your information and go undetected. Additionally, statistics also show that identity theft is a growing concern — and yet not many know about this issue.

There are several steps voters (regardless of how they will mechanically cast their ballots this fall) can take to minimize the possibility of being a victim of voter or identity fraud:

  • Do not give confidential information to a person who solicits you.
  • Only provide registration information on a form you complete that goes to the appropriate voting authority.
  • Make sure you use a secure network when casting your vote.
  • Vote as early as you can, even on Tuesday morning.
  • Use a monitoring service to detect potential fraud.

Following these steps can help you prevent voter fraud while also preserving your important constitutional right.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less