OPINION:
Presidential elections in America were once relatively simple. Election Day was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — depending on the year, between Nov. 2 and Nov. 8. Everyone was aware exactly when Election Day was. People registered to vote in advance. People had a specific precinct at which to vote. Ballot security was seen as an essential part of assuring the integrity of the election. Votes were tabulated that evening.
Flawless? Certainly not. But consistent, understood and generally trusted? Yes.
At some point, accommodations were made for those who might not be able to go to their local precinct on election day.
In the 1864 election, for example, Union soldiers voted in camps and field hospitals rather than their home precincts. Soldiers serving in wartime should not lose their privilege to vote simply because they are doing their duty. Eventually, more accommodations were made for those who were sick, traveling on business or had other suitable reasons.
But in 1978, California became the first state to let voters have an absentee ballot without having to provide a reason. And as more accommodations were made, ostensibly to encourage voter participation, those changes also appeared to create greater potential for fraud and abuse.
Inconsistent voting requirements and practices from state to state, questions about voter ID, extended days and locations for voters, the collection and handling of ballots by political operatives, and excruciatingly slow results from some precincts made many wonder whether the integrity of the process was being sacrificed.
What if moving forward there was a better way?
What if there was a method to vote that offered instant convenience for the voter, cut the number of government staff and volunteers required to execute the election, drastically cut the opportunity for fraud by eliminating the number of people handling ballots after they have been cast, and accomplished all of this in one single election day? And what if this method not only encouraged more voter participation but specifically got more young voters to take part?
Such a method exists.
The nation of Oman just completed voting for its 10th Shura Council, the lower house of its parliament. Voting was done in a single day, on Oct. 29, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. What made it unique was that it was done utilizing the completely electronic “Intakhib” app.
You read that right, an app.
Every ballot in the 2023 Shura Council vote was cast electronically from the voters’ telephones. The app is a user-friendly interface that incorporates high-level security measures and encryption technology to assure election integrity. Because it is an app on a phone, people can vote from wherever they are, be it work, home or the beach. No precincts. No faulty voting machines. No hanging chads. No question over who was handling the ballots.
Each voter had to pre-register to participate. Those who enrolled could then download the encrypted app, which would allow them to vote on election day. Verification included three specific steps: copying both sides of a personal ID card, reading personal card data through Near Field Communication (NFC), and capturing a personal photo of the voter.
Rather than a 20-minute drive to your local precinct, a two-minute verification process on a smartphone wherever the voter happened to be made it remarkably convenient. The app even featured an audio reading feature and sign language support for the deaf and hard of hearing.
The Ministry of Interior set up a hotline to handle technical problems, directly dealing with the voter, as any problems arose. Few did.
The bottom line was nothing short of amazing. Looking back to 2019, during the 9th Shura Council elections, Oman saw 49% of eligible voters participate. With the new Intakhib app, voter participation skyrocketed to 66%.
One reason to have a fully digital election was that Oman, like many countries, has traditionally seen limited enthusiasm for elections from younger people. Many young adults have their faces buried in their smartphones much of the time and don’t exhibit interest in participating in traditional practices such as going to the ballot box. It caused some in the Ministry of Interior to wonder how to get them more involved. The answer was right in front of them. What if the smartphone became the ballot box?
As it turned out, the idea increased participation among all age brackets.
In the United States there are perpetual calls for a safer, more secure method of voting, something that encourages more people to be part of the process, something that decreases the likelihood of fraud, something that makes it simpler and faster to count the ballots.
What if the United States created a federal standard for presidential elections and took a cue from the system that worked so well in Oman?
Granted, Oman has only 753,260 enrolled voters, whereas the United States had 158 million people vote in the last presidential contest in 2020, so scaling up the security and practical viability of such an app could be challenging. Of particular concern is the recent memory of the pathetic online launch of Obamacare, when the system crashed repeatedly and was essentially inoperable for more than a month after its launch date.
A repeat of such an event under the banner of an election could cause utter chaos, but private industry apps seem to do it flawlessly, so surely it can be successfully achieved.
In Ohio, roughly 90% of absentee ballots that are requested are actually filled out and returned. That is an amazing number. Those who make the effort to engage in getting a ballot overwhelmingly participate.
What if requiring voters to register and download an app replaced the old-fashioned absentee ballot? In fact, what if it replaced all ballots? Is it possible that voters who engage this way will participate at higher percentages? The Oman Shura Council elections proved one thing. It is not only possible, it is likely.
