I am interested in the possible future consequences for democracy and especially electoral processes by IT and the digital age. Are we moving towards a time when direct democracy via instant poling on individual issues could become a reality? What are the implications of digital direct democracy upon party based democratic political systems?
Apart from all the issues surrounding safety (hacking, fraud) etc. I think for the Netherlands it would be good if digital voting would become an option - voting is voluntary here and voting percentages are steadily decreasing, to around 40%-50% for local elections and 70% for national elections. If people would not have to actually physically go somewhere, take time out of their schedule etc., perhaps we could get more people to vote. As a woman, I am always appalled by people not using their right to vote - it's been literally fought for and not around that long for women either.
As for the increasing demand - from the public - for referendums on almost every topic (at least over here), or generally a demand for more democracy.. difficult. Nowadays there are so many things people have to 'give an opinion' on that I foresee low participation rates. Voting fatigue is likely to set in.
I understand what you mean by voting fatigue and also the low turn-outs both of which question democracy. Are you aware of any other models for public participation - community assemblies perhaps?
Do you think that a vast communication network for digital voting is affordable for developing countries?
That is an interesting question. I am unsure of the relative costs of digital versus paper ballots. Do you know about this Dr Ahmed? I guess when I was asking the question I was thinking more about the developed countries.
Dear Professor Hackett, let me thank you for your intriguing question. From my point of view it covers three sub-domains.
1) Direct / Instant Democracy. Some political activists, I can cite as examples Beppe Grillo or Pippo Civati in Italy, let their supporters wide room to express themselves and even to fix important decisions over the net. For instance, Civati (Democrat Party), despite his own perplexities, recently decided to appoint Renzi's Government after a web poll. What arises from observation is that decisions still demand time. People have to inform themselves (even on simple, emotional subjects), so the process is not "istant". And, for more complex decisions, it seems reasonable that the cost of being informed (or feel to be) can easily overcome the benefit of direct participation. So, I don't think internet will make democratic systems to shift from representation to direct exercise of decision power.
2) Electronic vote and 3) costs
Beyond the issues raised by Professor Massar (with which I agree), I guess use of technology will allow to adopt more sophisticated voting systems at a reasonable cost. For instance, living in France (roughly 46 millions of voters) I tried to verify if a Single Transferable Vote system might be adopted, under the constraint that a single poll allow the election of both President and Parliament and that MPs represent a constituency each, with gender parity. With an electronic system there is (almost) no problem. The ballot would be similar than an "Euromillions" (european lottery) ticket and the optical machines would be similar (so the transmission network) used for this lottery. Only, if a paper witness of the vote is expected in order to allow ex post control, vote cannot occur from home.