Information Technology and Disabilities Journal
Top of Form
Search this site:
Bottom of Form
· Home
· Index
· About
· Contact
Volume X Number 2, December 2004
Accessible Democracy and Electronic Voting In The Republic Of Ireland
Maeve Paris
Lecturer in Computer Science,
School of Computing & Intelligent Systems,
University of Ulster
ABSTRACT
Just six weeks before voters went to the polls, the Government of the Republic of Ireland was forced to withdraw its plans for the country's first all-electronic elections, and revert to the traditional paper-based ballot, at a substantial cost to taxpayers. The proposed system had been criticised on many counts by commentators, politicians, and the independent Commission on Electronic Voting. Accessibility was never a requirement in the procurement of the system, which turned out to be inaccessible to many users with disabilities; the right to accessibility is not enshrined in Irish law, and disability rights in general are not protected. This is in contrast with the situation in the United Kingdom, where all e-voting initiatives must ensure compliance with legislation. This paper examines how, by failing to take into account the needs of a substantial portion of the electorate, the Irish Government's e-voting implementation is no more democratic than the traditional paper-based method, and may even pose additional barriers to full participation in the democratic process.
INTRODUCTION
If everything had gone according to plan for the Fianna Fáil (political party) Government of the Republic of Ireland, the 2004 local and European elections, as well as voting on the constitutional referendum, would have been the country's first all-electronic elections. However, just six weeks before voters went to the polls, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government in the Irish Parliament, Martin Cullen TD, was forced to suspend the introduction of e-voting and revert to the traditional paper-based ballot (Cullen, 2004). Total procurement costs for the Nedap/Powervote system have been estimated at €52m ($69.5m) (Irish Independent, 2004), and the voting machines will not be redeployed until 2007 at the earliest, and then only in tandem with other methods of voting. The Government's decision followed the findings of the Independent Commission on Electronic Voting, which objected to the introduction of the voting machines on the grounds that the proposed system compromised accuracy and secrecy (CEV, 2004).
It is this issue of secrecy which has implications for disabled people in Ireland: the Commission observed that there was reduced voting secrecy for persons with certain disabilities, so accessibility was compromised (CEV, 2004). However, accessibility was not a concern of the Government until well after electronic voting pilots had been undertaken in 2002; the trials revealed that the new system was inaccessible to many disabled voters. In response to submissions from interest groups, minor changes were made: font sizes on the screens were enlarged, for example, but other opportunities were missed. The machines are equipped with a port to convert voter selections to audio output, but this was not followed through by the Government. The information literature produced to inform the electorate only addressed wheelchair users (who were told that the system was accessible), the visually impaired (who were told that their needs would be considered in the future), and the elderly (who were told that the elderly in other countries were satisfied with the implementation) (Department of the Environment and Local Government, 20032, 2003b). It failed to recognise the range of disabilities which can restrict full and equal participation in democracy; it also failed to recognise that people can have multiple disabilities. The online demonstration of the new procedure failed to achieve even minimum compliance with the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines (WAI, 2004).
Accessibility is not protected by law in the Republic of Ireland: there is no legislation to provide disabled people with any legal guarantee of services, there is no law relating to access and no means of redress when disabled people's rights are ignored; in short, there is no rights-based domestic legislation. Planned legislation in the form of the Disability Bill 2001 should have gone some way towards enforcing accessibility, but the bill was withdrawn by the Government in 2002, and no further progress seems to be imminent. This is in contrast to the situation with Ireland's nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom. The UK has long-standing and recently updated legislation to protect the rights of disabled people with respect to accessible democracy. (There are three main Acts with which all electronic voting initiatives must comply.)
This paper explores how, in the absence of legislation to enforce compliance, accessibility issues have not been a major feature of the Irish Government's electronic voting initiative. Comparisons are drawn with the UK Government's initiatives which are based on phased multi-channel elections, offering the electorate a range of methods for voting, all of which must comply with relevant legislation. By failing to take into account the needs of an estimated 8.3% of the population of the Republic of Ireland (Central Statistics Office, 2004), the Government's e-voting implementation is at the very least no more democratic than the existing manual ballot, and at worst an additional barrier to full and equal participation in the electoral process.
ELECTRONIC VOTING AND DISABILITY LEGISLATION IN IRELAND AND THE UK
The 2002 census revealed that 8.3% of the population of Ireland, or almost 320,000 people, had a long-term disability, and over half of these had more than one disability (Central Statistics Office, 2004). More females than males had a disability, and more than two-thirds of disabled people were over 50 years of age.
It is less easy to estimate the number of people with disabilities in the UK, Ireland's nearest neighbour. The most recent survey, undertaken in 2001, indicated that 6.7 million people of working age had a disability (Labour Force Survey, 2001), while the OPCS survey from 1984 - 1988 concluded that 6.2 million adults in the UK were disabled, representing 14.2% of the adult population at the time. The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) estimates that two million people in the UK have a sight problem (RNIB, 2003), and 21% of the UK population is aged sixty or over (National Statistics, 2004).
The UK has long-standing and recently updated legislation to protect the rights of disabled people with respect to accessible democracy. There are three main Acts with which all electronic voting initiatives must comply: the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the Human Rights Act 1998; and the Representation of the People Act 2000. A series of guidelines has been developed by many agencies to assist in interpreting and applying the legislation (see WAI, 2004). The UK has adopted an approach to modernisation of the electoral system, based on phasing in multi-channel elections, offering the electorate a range of methods for voting which includes electronic voting. E-voting pilots have been undertaken since 2000, and trials have been carried out on kiosk systems, remote voting by electronic means (RVEM), digital television, and short messaging service (SMS).
The Republic of Ireland, on the other hand, offers little in the way of legislation. The Equal Status Act 2002 (Government of Ireland, 2000) may provide some protection, but there have been no test cases as of yet [although Dáil (Irish Parliament) proceedings hinted that there may be a test case in preparation (Dáil, 2004-03-04)]. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 1996 only includes provisions for making polling stations accessible to wheelchair users. The Disability Bill 2001 should have gone some way towards enforcing accessibility; it was largely concerned with placing duties on public bodies in relation to the provision of services for people with disabilities, and would have obliged public bodies to ensure that services and buildings were accessible where possible. It also planned for the creation of a Centre For Excellence in Universal Design, to encompass electronic design as well as the physical environment (Relate, 2002a), but the bill was withdrawn in 2002, largely as a consequence of objections from groups representing disabled people. It was considered by these groups that the bill focused too much on the duties of public bodies as opposed to the rights of individuals (Relate, 2002b). This rights-based disability legislation was a long time in preparation (almost ten years), but it looks as if no further progress on pushing the bill through is imminent in the short term. The Government had no plans to publish the bill before the June elections, citing ongoing consultation for the delays. It also delayed the Education for Persons with a Disability Bill, and withdrew support for the proposed UN convention on the Rights of People with disabilities (Politics,ie, 2004b). It does, however, support the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the absence of legislation to enforce compliance, accessibility issues have not been a major feature of the Irish Government's electronic voting initiative, with the result that the proposed system is far from being accessible to most users with a disability.
USER-FRIENDLINESS, USABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY: MOTIVATIONS FOR E-VOTING.
The motivation for the introduction of e-voting was 'to improve the efficiency, speed, accuracy and user friendliness of Irish elections' (Dáil, 2004-03-04) which use a complex proportional representation system of ballots. It is interesting to note that the motivation was not, as is the case elsewhere, to increase voter turnout, or to widen access to participation in the electoral process. Voter turnout for the European elections in 1999 was relatively low at 50.9% (although Ireland fared much better than the UK, where turnout was only 24%) (EUObserver.com, 2004). So from the outset, it seems that accessibility was not a concern for the Irish Government. However, accessibility concerns quickly arose as the Government's intentions became clearer.
User friendliness, one of the Irish Government's motivating drivers, is generally agreed to be a subjective term when applied to software and technology, and is part of the field of human-computer interaction. It can be measured to a degree by capacities such as adequacy, learnability, and robustness. It is linked to usability and accessibility, both of which have more concrete definitions. Usability is an attribute of software quality, and is defined by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) as 'the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments' (ISO, 1998). Standards and metrics have been developed to quantify the usability of products, user interfaces and interaction, process quality, and organizational capability. Usability considerations relate to the ease with which users can accomplish tasks and recover from errors; they also relate to provisions for meeting the special needs of disabled users. In this respect, usability embraces the related concept of accessibility. For computers and software applications, accessibility refers to the usability of a computer system by people with disabilities; the ISO defines accessibility as 'the usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities' (ISO, 2003). This standard offers guidance on the development of accessible software and interactive systems for people with the widest range of visual, hearing, motor, and cognitive abilities (this includes the elderly as well as temporarily disabled people) and is intended to complement general design standards for usability.
So, the terms user-friendliness, usability, and accessibility are not synonymous, although the two latter terms are closely related. User friendliness equates with simplicity of use for a typical user (Home Business Manual, 2003) or a novice or inexperienced user (Unesco, 2002); usability offers a stricter, measurable definition, and includes aspects of accessibility, which relate to disabled users.
HISTORY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
The Irish Government piloted electronic voting in three constituencies (Dublin North, Dublin West, and Meath) for the general election on 17 May 2002. This initial pilot was extended to include a further four constituencies (Dublin Mid-West, Dublin South, Dublin South-West, and Dun Laoghaire) in voting for the referendum of 19 October in the same year.
The success of these pilot projects led the Government to propose the full-scale introduction of electronic voting as well as vote counting systems in all constituencies for the local and European elections and a constitutional referendum of 11 June 2004. However, these plans were postponed at the eleventh hour, when on 30 April 2004 (just six weeks before the elections) the Minister for the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government, Martin Cullen TD, announced that the proposed e-voting system would not be used in June, and that the elections would revert to the traditional paper ballot method. This statement came despite the Minister's earlier judgment that the new system was 'more accurate and more democratic' (eGovernment News, 2004). However, as the new system failed to consider disabled voters and accessibility issues, it could hardly have been considered any more democratic than the previous manual ballot system.
What led the Irish Government to shelve its plans at the last minute? It was largely on the advice of the (Government-appointed) independent Commission on Electronic Voting. This Commission was appointed on 1 March 2004, to report by 1 May 2004, on 'the secrecy, accuracy and testing' (CEV, 2004) of the e-voting system procured by the Government, namely the Nedap/ Powervote system.
The Commission produced an interim report; the full report will not be in the public domain until legislation confirms the statutory footing of the Commission. Basing its findings on tests, expert reports, and submissions, the Commission concluded that it was 'not in a position to recommend with requisite degree of confidence the use of the chosen system at elections in Ireland in June 2004' (CEV, 2004). Criticisms were leveled at the system on the grounds of accuracy and secrecy, and it is the issue of secrecy which relates to accessibility in particular. Secrecy is defined in the interim report: 'the secret ballot must be secret to the voter, i.e. it relates to matters concerning the possible disclosure of how a voter has voted' and secrecy has implications for disabled voters in the context of e-voting: 'there is reduced voting secrecy for persons with certain disabilities (although this is not a legal issue in the sense that, in McMahon v Attorney General the Court held that the right to secrecy is not an absolute one) as well as for persons who are unfamiliar with technology and who may need third-party assistance in using the machine' (CEV, 2004).