The Case for Mobile Voting

The Case for
Mobile Voting
BRADLEY TUSK
Founder and CEO, Tusk Holdings
AILEEEN KIM
Mobile Voting Project Leader, Tusk Philanthropies
Research Fellows,
Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform
April 2020
A Public Policy Paper
published by the
Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform
at Wagner College
Staten Island, New York

The Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform • Wagner College
The Hugh L. Carey Institute
for Government Reform
at Wagner College
Dan Donovan Director
The non-partisan Hugh L. Carey Institute for
Government Reform proposes policies to solve
issues Americans face.
Wagner College
One Campus Road
Staten Island, New York 10301
Tel: 718-390-3297
carey.institute@wagner.edu
www.wagner.edu/carey-institute/

The Case for Mobile Voting
Introduction
BRADLEY TUSK AND AILEEN KIM
Research Fellows, Hugh L. Carey Institute
for Government Reform
People use their smartphones for everything, all day, every day: talking to family
and friends, refilling prescriptions, doing their jobs, paying their bills, boarding a
flight, and so much more. So, in the age of online, why not use them to vote too?
Giving voters the option to cast their ballots via a smartphone or computer can help
materially increase turnout in the U.S. and create a far more representative
government, while easing the polarization and dysfunction that has rendered our
government nearly inoperable.

BRADLEY TUSK AND AILEEN KIM
“Whether it be
voter ID
requirements,
voter roll
purges, … or
limited polling
place hours,
many voters face
a gauntlet of
challenges when
exercising their
most basic right
as an American
citizen.”
Hostage to the Extremes
While many issues contribute to the current dysfunctional state of U.S.
politics, voter turnout is one of the main reasons for its sharp decline. Historical
election data shows that turnout in the U.S. lags far behind most developed
countries. In the last presidential election (2016), turnout was 55.7%.1
In the last
midterm (2018), turnout reached a historic “high” of 53%.2
While turnout in the
50s may be high for the U.S., by international standards, these numbers are
comparatively low considering the majority of Organization for Economic and
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have turnout rates ranging from
the high 50s to 80s.3
The reasons for low voter turnout are varied and numerous. Depending
on the jurisdiction, voters may face just one or a number of obstacles to casting
their ballots. Whether it be voter ID requirements, voter roll purges, lack of
language assistance and ballot translation, polling place closures and
consolidations, inaccessible polling locations and voting equipment, or limited
polling place hours, many voters face a gauntlet of challenges when exercising
their most basic right as an American citizen. While some of these voter
suppression tactics are undeniably political, many are also a symptom of an
election system that is no longer centered on the voter, but on propping up the
people and political interests that have learned to game the system.
The way elections are currently conducted, winning candidates are not typically
chosen by the majority, but instead by a small percentage of voters on the extreme

ends of the political spectrum. Since voter turnout tends to be even lower in primary
elections, the current process incentivizes candidates to win contests by mobilizing
loyal voters who constitute a small share of the electorate, instead of building
broad-based coalitions that are more representative of the majority of voters. Under
this primary system, the odds of success for fringe candidates are high as incentives
lean heavily towards the elites and interest groups, who have their own agendas
and tend to be more ideological and polarized than the moderate voters who turn
out in the generals. This means, the 18.3% in 2010, 17.3% in 2012, 14.3% in 2014,
28.5% in 2016, and 19.9% in 2018 of eligible voters voting in the primaries have
effectively shaped the politics for the rest of the America.4,5,6
Take gun control, for example. For decades, the U.S. has struggled to pass
commonsense gun control legislation regulating who can and cannot purchase a
firearm and restricting the distribution and sale of military-grade assault weapons.
The reason why these policies are largely a nonstarter in Congress and in statehouses
across the country is because the National Rifle Association (NRA) exerts outsized
influence over elected officials. Politicians who vote against gun control policies are
rewarded with campaign contributions and votes from ideological and polarizing NRA
supporters in critical primary elections. On the flip side, politicians who vote for gun
control policies run the risk of facing the wrath of that same political spending and
supporter mobilization and losing their seat. If people want to make real progress on
gun reform, they have to show their elected representatives they want it by using the
only political currency that is more valued by elected representatives than campaign
cash: votes.
To increase the number of votes, you must also increase the number of voting options.
Offering additional options to in-person voting, like mobile voting and vote by mail

lowers many of the barriers to access outlined above and gives a greater number of
people the opportunity to participate in the electoral process. Increasing the number
of voting options in turn increases turnout amongst a broader range of voters. Having
more people participate in the electoral process not only strengthens our democracy;
increased voter turnout can also ease polarization and restore faith in government by
requiring politicians and parties – which will always do whatever is necessary to win
– to be far more accountable, more representative, and more willing to compromise
in order to maintain their appeal and court the votes of a broader base of supporters.
The current COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the critical importance of
having multiple voting options for voters. The impact of the coronavirus has made
it woefully clear how under-resourced and unprepared the U.S. is to effectively
conduct elections without disruptions in times of crisis. As of the writing of this
paper, 16 states and Puerto Rico have postponed their primaries by a month or more
due to coronavirus risks, and almost all 50 states are weighing vote by mail as an
option for voters in either or both the primary and general elections. While a safer
alternative to voting in person, voting by mail still poses a number of challenges for
states.
First, it is resource intensive. One estimate by the Brennan Center put the
states’ transition to mail at $1.4 billion for printing, postage, drop boxes, ballot
tracking, ballot processing, and facilities, staffing, and support.7
Second, it has the
potential to disenfranchise certain groups of voters if the proper accommodations are
not made. A mailed ballot may not work for people who live in remote areas that are
inaccessible by road like in Alaska or use post office boxes because they live on a
tribal reservation. For active military serving overseas, ongoing disruptions in
international mail service due to the coronavirus mean that they may or may not be
able to receive or return their ballots. For voters who are blind or have a physical

disability, reading text, physically writing or marking ballot choices, and then
signing and sealing an envelope can be a significant barrier to voting. Third, voting
by mail does not accommodate those who may have been displaced by the
pandemic. Students and people who are quarantined away from home may not be
able to take advantage of voting by mail due to residing someplace other than
where their ballot is normally sent. Fourth, in a time where people are encouraged
to shelter at home and observe social distancing, going to a mailbox or drop box
could be life threatening, especially for those who are at higher risk for the disease,
such as seniors and people with compromised immune systems. With the proper
resources and support, mobile voting can be a realistic, accessible, and cost-
effective alternative and complement to vote by mail for states seeking ways to
keep their election staff, poll workers, and voters safe during the pandemic.
Mobile Voting as an Equalizer
In March 2020, there were reports of voters in Texas waiting over six hours to cast
their ballots. The state had closed a record 750 polling places between 2012 and
2018 and left many polling sites with an inadequate number of poll workers and
voting machines, all contributing to long lines for voters to wait in.8
Voters in
Texas do not have the option of voting by mail, and absentee ballots are only
available to those who are disabled, over the age of 65, or residing or serving
overseas. This means voters’ only options are to wait it out in line or to skip voting
altogether.
Long lines and wait times hurt some communities more than others. The elderly
and people with disabilities, both visible and invisible, often have a hard time
getting to and from the polls. Working people, whose time equals the cash they
use to support themselves and their families, may not have the hours to spare to
cast their votes (one estimate by a MIT professor put the economic cost of waiting
“With the
proper
resources and
support, mobile
voting can be a
realistic,
accessible, and
cost-effective
alternative and
complement to
vote by mail.”

“So many of the
issues associated
with our current
election system
are designed to
disenfranchise
the most
vulnerable in
American
society and keep
the nation
divided.”
in line in a presidential election at over half a million dollars).9
Parents and
caretakers, whose schedules revolve around the people they care for, may not find
the polling place hours or the wait times workable or convenient. Layered on top
of all these issues is the fact that some of the measures that complicate in-person
voting are intentionally designed to restrict access by voters who are poor, rural,
or from communities of color.
Mobile voting is one answer to helping overcome the obstacles faced by
some populations of voters at the polling place. Mobile voting can help a voter
living or serving overseas to receive and return their ballots in a timely fashion;
allow a disabled voter to use the accessible technology built in their personal
smartphones or tablets to independently and secretly mark and return their ballots
without having to deal with inexperienced poll workers and accessible voting
machines that may or may not work; provide elderly voters the option of voting
from the comfort and safety of their homes; and mitigate the discrimination some
voters of color experience when casting their ballot. So many of the issues
associated with our current election system are designed to disenfranchise the
most vulnerable in American society and keep the nation divided. Mobile voting,
while not a cure all, is one pro-voter tool that can give voters a choice in how they
exercise their most basic right as a citizen.
Election Security and Mobile Voting
Most of the debate around mobile voting has centered on security, with
many opponents in the academic and cybersecurity fields dismissing the idea of
electronic voting over fears of hacking.10
Proponents of mobile voting recognize
that security is of utmost importance because the integrity of all elections is
critical to preserving voters’ trust in the process and its results.

To promote mobile voting without understanding the risks and working to mitigate
them would be counterproductive to advancing the movement for increasing access
and turnout in our elections.
One way to test the security and resilience of mobile voting is to conduct pilots
in relatively low-risk elections and have government agencies like the Department of
Homeland Security and independent security firms review the technology and identify
vulnerabilities, so that when it is rolled out in larger contests, the proper security protocols
and defenses are in place to prevent malicious attacks. Policymakers and election
administrators can help preserve the integrity of mobile voting elections by requiring that
all electronic voting methods have a paper trail, so voters, election offices, and the public
can verify and audit the results to make sure votes were recorded properly and as intended.
Policymakers and election administrators should also take advantage of the decades of
cybersecurity knowledge acquired over the years and leverage the best practices and mobile
technology advancements, such as biometrics and end-to-end encryption, to create a secure
environment for the voter. They should also make it a point to remain technology and vendor
agnostic to encourage innovation and competition within the marketplace.
While mobile voting is by no means infallible, it does offer a number of advantages
over our current system, which has been plagued by lost paper ballots, vulnerable
and inaccessible voting machines, and unencrypted emails from voters. Current mobile
voting technologies offer election administrators the ability to authenticate and verify
voters’ identities and receive voters’ marked ballots through secure channels. It can
instruct voters on how to mark the ballot correctly, alert them when they over- or undervote,
and remind them to verify their selections before submitting their ballot. Mobile voting
technology can also enhance accessibility, increase transparency, and support robust audits.
People across the country already employ mobile technologies to eliminate friction in their
daily lives and make everyday tasks, both big and small, more convenient. Instead of

shunning technology, policymakers should explore opportunities to use it more
effectively to help more people get engaged and voting.
Recommendations and Next Steps
Data from MIT shows that voters are moving away from voting in-person
and opting for alternate voting methods like voting by mail.11
Data also shows that
offering alternate voting options like early voting and no-excuse absentee voting can
increase turnout.12
These trends show that people are seeking more accessible and
convenient ways to exercise their right to vote.
Mobile voting is not a question of if, but when, so policymakers and election
administrators must proactively leverage the knowledge, expertise, and technology
of today to build a more secure election system for tomorrow. Tusk Philanthropies
has been conducting pilots across the country with the goal of providing
policymakers and election administrators the information and best practices needed
to safely and transparently implement mobile voting, while also growing the market
of vendors to promote competition and innovation. Since 2018, Tusk Philanthropies
has supported eleven pilots in five states – Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and West Virginia – to test mobile voting and show that is secure and capable of
increasing turnout.
All of the pilots conducted to date have been successful with clean audits
(performed by the National Cybersecurity Center) showing that no votes were
intercepted or changed, and suggest that mobile voting has the potential to
significantly boost turnout in future elections. Recent research by the University of
Chicago Harris School of Public Policy found that the ability to vote using a mobile
device increased turnout by three to five percentage points in the 2018 federal
election in West Virginia.13
Election results from Denver’s 2019 municipal election
showed that turnout for people eligible to vote remotely under the Uniformed

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) doubled compared to
turnout from the 2015 election.14
The foundation’s most recent pilot, conducted in February 2020 for the
King Conservation District’s Board of Supervisors election, was the biggest
mobile voting pilot with all 1.2 million voters registered in King County,
Washington eligible to cast their ballots using their mobile devices. Final election
results showed that turnout doubled as a result of the implementation of mobile
voting.15
In addition to turnout, it is also telling that if given the option, people
prefer the mobile voting option over others. In Denver for example, 100% of
respondents to a post-election survey said they favored secure mobile voting over
all other methods available to them.16
In King County, canvassing data from the
county elections office shows that 94% of voters opted to return their ballot
electronically, versus in-person, mail, and drop box.17
There is growing evidence
that voters favor more convenient and accessible methods of voting and it is up
to policymakers and election administrators to help make mobile voting a reality
for them.
The first step policymakers can take to make mobile voting a reality is to
create policies that allow for pilots to test mobile voting in controlled, low-risk
environments targeting specific constituencies with a clear need (e.g. military
serving overseas, voters with disabilities, students living abroad or away from
home, people who are displaced or in quarantine due to a pandemic, etc.). With
the understanding that security and accessibility are iterative processes,
policymakers should actively solicit feedback and advice from election
administrators and voters, and share the knowledge gained from these
experiments with the public and security experts, not only create best practices
“Final election
results showed
that turnout
doubled as a
result of the
implementation
of mobile
voting.15
In
addition to
turnout, it is also
telling that if
given the option,
people prefer the
mobile voting
option over
others.”

Put in partnership with key stakeholders, but to prioritize transparency within our
election system. Policymakers should also make an effort to center the needs of the
voter when making reforms. Many of the challenges we face with our current
election system (e.g. accessibility issues) can be avoided by engaging the relevant
partners early and often. Finally, to build and secure an election system of the future,
policymakers should provide election administrators with the resources they need to
effectively do their jobs. By taking these steps, policymakers can begin to push for
wider implementation of mobile voting and help move the country towards greater
civic engagement.
1
U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout, Pew Research (2018),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-
developed-countries/
2
Voter Turnout Rates Among All Voting Age and Major Racial and Ethnic Groups Were
Higher Than in 2014, (U.S. Census Bureau (2019),
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-
election-turnout.html
3
U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout, Pew Research (2018),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-
developed-countries/
4
2018 Primary Election Turnout and Reforms, Bipartisan Policy Center (2018),
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/2018-primary-elections-turnout-and-reforms/
5
National Primary Turnout Hits New Record Low, Bipartisan Policy Center (2012),
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/national-primary-turnout-hits-new-record-low/
6
Turnout was high in the 2016 primary season, but just short of 2008 record, Pew Research
(2016),https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-
2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/
7
Estimated Costs of Covid-19 Election Resiliency Measures, Brennan Center (2020),
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/estimated-costs-covid-19-
election-resiliency-measures
8
Here’s Why Texans Had to Wait Six Hours to Vote, Mother Jones (2020),
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/texas-primary-lines/
9
Improving the Voter Experience: Reducing Polling Place Wait Times by Measuring Lines
and Managing Polling Place Resources, Bipartisan Policy Center (2019),
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Improving-The-Voter-
Experience-Reducing-Polling-Place-Wait-Times-by-Measuring-Lines-and-Managing-
Polling-Place-Resources.pdf
10
Cybersecurity Experts Say Hacking Risk Is High for Mobile Voting, Bloomberg
Businessweek (2020),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-26/cybersecurity-experts-say-
hacking-risk-is-high-for-mobile-voting

11
Voting by mail and absentee voting, MIT Election Data & Science Lab,
https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absentee-voting
12
Improving Voter Turnout, National Council of State Legislatures (2014),
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/improving-voter-turnout.aspx
13
The Promises and Perils of Mobile Voting, Fowler, Anthony (2020).
https://voices.uchicago.edu/fowler/research/
14
Enhanced Security and Access for UOCAVA Voters, Denver Elections Division (2019).
https://www.electioncenter.org/national-association-of-election-officials/election-adminstration-and-
voter-registration/professional-practice-papers/2019/35th-Annual-National-Conference-Orlando-
Florida/Democracy-Award/Outstanding-Practice-Of-2019/Enhanced-Security-and-Access-for-UOCAVA-
Voters-Bucaro-Miller-Denver-Elections-Division-Colorado.pdf
15
Turnout almost doubles in Seattle-area election after mobile voting implemented, The Hill (2020).
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/486161-turnout-almost-doubles-in-seattle-area-election-after-
mobile-voting
16
SURVEY: Participants in the Denver Pilot Prefer Mobile Voting Over All Other Options, Mobile Voting
Project (2019). https://mobilevoting.org/2019/05/denver-survey/
17
2020 data from the King County Canvassing Board Report,
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/elections/current-elections/february-special.aspx

The Hugh L. Carey
Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College
Dan Donovan
Director
Dr. Abraham Unger
Research Director
Maya Barr
Research Assistant
Holly Alexander
Administrator
The Hugh L. Carey Institute
for Government Reform at Wagner
College conducts non-partisan
studies proposing policy to solve
issues Americans face.
Wagner College
One Campus Road
Staten Island, New York 10301
Tel: 718-420-4131
carey.institute@wagner.edu
www.wagner.edu

The Case for Mobile Voting

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a The Case for Mobile Voting

Semelhante a The Case for Mobile Voting (16)

Mais de Wagner College

Mais de Wagner College (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Case for Mobile Voting