Progress in the wrong direction: experts have analyzed the pros and cons of electronic voting

Electronic voting, which has generated so many scandals in the country's political life, is likely to become the main way of expressing the will of the people. It is not without reason that Peskov has already proclaimed the thesis that the REV should be extended to the entire country. It is clear that the Russian opposition will resist this to the best of its ability. President of the European Association of Political Consultants Igor Mintusov published on the popular analytical channel Kremlin Madman analytical notes about the past elections under the headline "The End of Electoral Democracy in Russia?", In which he drew the prospect of democracy in our country:

“Discussion of the further development of the remote electronic voting system (REV) continues to be one of the topical topics after the last parliamentary elections. Before a number of experts and critics of electronic voting had time to express their complaints about the transparency of the REV, two high-ranking Russian politicians (Chairman of the Federation Council V. Matviyenko and press secretary of the President D. Peskov) voiced the same thesis on Wednesday last week: experience The use of REV in the elections in 2021 justified itself; by 2024, it is necessary to extend this positive experience throughout the country. The inevitability of this, in the opinion of the authorities, is conditioned by two factors.

Firstly, by the development of technical progress, and, secondly, by the unfounded criticism of the REV. The speed of positive public assessment of the REV by representatives of the country's political leadership is alarming. Are there answers to all the questions and comments of the REV critics? Let us emphasize that it is not the REV that causes mistrust in terms of its technological component, but the political administrators of the REV who manage this system (in the case of Moscow, this is the Moscow City Electoral Commission and the Moscow City Hall).

The situation in Moscow, where the results of elections in the REV system changed the overall results of voting in 8 single-mandate constituencies in favor of "administrative candidates", suggests a high degree of urgency of the issues presented to the REV system and strong distrust of citizens towards it. Here I would like to say a few words about the "postponed voting" option, which was provided only to Moscow voters. The possibility of "re-voting" is presented by REV supporters as an indisputable advantage - the protection of the voter's vote from the influence of "administrative coercion". Forced to vote at work - came home, voted. The assumption of coercion of the voter to vote by third parties in this case is presented as something natural and normal, for which one even has to complicate the system technically.

This formulation of the problem seems to be inappropriate. The executive branch allegedly forgot about the existence of Article 141 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "On obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights of citizens...". The CEC and the authorities should, relying on this article, focus on combating illegal administrative coercion of voters to vote, and not on creating additional options for voters to help them bypass the criminal actions of some employers, primarily from budgetary organizations.

Additionally, I would like to note that from a legal point of view, the “re-voting” procedure is illegal. This is confirmed by the head of the CEC Ella Pamfilova, speaking about the work of the Moscow REV platform: “They first proposed a re-vote, we categorically rejected it, since there is no re-voting in the law, but offered them a form of the so-called deferred voting. It made life much more difficult".

In addition to the fact that the authorities are trying to present the REV as a modern and convenient mechanism for voting, there is an attempt to appeal to foreign experience. In particular, the head of the United Russia party Dmitry Medvedev said: “There is no doubt that the whole world is moving towards electronic voting. The passage of time, the development of electronic technologies cannot be stopped". This is slyness. In the USA and Germany, some time ago they refused to hold elections using REV, despite the fact that the level of development of information technologies in the USA and Germany is hardly inferior to the level of their development in Russia. There were two reasons for the refusal: a very complex system of control over the course of voting via the Internet and counting of votes; and the threat of violation of the secrecy of voting by specific voters by the REV administrators. The critics of REV in Russia speak of exactly the same characteristics. In this regard, there is no need to talk about the presence of “extensive international experience” in using electronic voting. Maybe we should adopt the "reverse" experience of Germany and the United States?

And here is the cherry on the cake. In Moscow on the eve of the police blocked the reception of the first vice-speaker of the State Duma I. Melnikov, where materials are kept for filing lawsuits demanding the cancellation of the election results at some polling stations in the capital..."

***

This material has caused a lively discussion on the web. For example, an expert of the analytical channel Yury Dolgoruky is sure that the end of electoral democracy came much earlier:

“The funny thing is that the end came a couple of seasons ago, and this is the main reason for the desperate trash observed during the current campaign. This is a resuscitation procedure with a stun gun: "shock! Another shock!" - and DEG is just one of the tools. Moreover, they are designed not to revive the situation in the aquarium, but to imitate, as if the fish are still swimming in it. The current elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were already too similar to serving a number, the public reacted to them so apathetically. And there is no reason to believe, given the prospects of the Big Transfer and the processes associated with them, that the situation will somehow change by the next elections. So DEG is rather a great way to keep your face, and only secondarily - a way to simulate the result. There have never been any problems with modeling the result in Russia, by the way, this is one of the reasons why everything is so bad now: people were not left at all with space within which they could show at least some kind of will. With or without DEG, they are able to produce the necessary numbers perfectly..."

On the other hand, analysts from the Pskovskie Novosti channel are confident that the electoral situation in the West is no better than in Russia:

“As for talking about guile when appealing to foreign experience, not everything is so simple. Igor Mintusov is still not quite right when he says that the level of development of information technologies in the USA and Germany is not worse than in Russia. Surprisingly, these states are beginning to lag behind Russia in terms of a number of indicators in IT. At least in their distribution. In addition, do not forget that, for example, in the United States, the analogue of DEG was abandoned in favor of a much more opaque voting system by mail.

And, finally, about the above words of Gennady Zyuganov. Of course, they have their own truth. But after all, with the widespread introduction of remote electronic voting, it will remain only one of the instruments of expression of will. So, apologists for traditional, non-digital voting methods, such as Gennady Andreevich, do not stop urging their voters to vote in the old fashioned way, in a box.

In general, everyone should be left aside talking about the dangers and benefits of DEG. The introduction of electronic voting is inevitable, which means that its opponents now need to think about effective, digital methods of controlling such voting..."

From my side. Doctor of Economics, Director of the Center for Research on Post-Industrial Society Vladislav Inozemtsev believes that the new slogan of the opposition should be the abolition of the secret ballot:

“Today it is obvious: the tools for monitoring citizens are such that any actions that irritate the authorities are easily tracked. Against the background of participation in an unauthorized rally, which can no longer be made incognito, the fact of voting for an opposition party or candidate is hardly information worth hiding (on voting days, hundreds of people posted their completed ballots on social networks). And if so, then it is necessary to demand the organization of voting in an open mode: if a person votes at a precinct, his ballot is copied and certified by the signature of the commission members and its seal; if voting takes place on the Internet, the choice of each citizen remains visible in his personal account on the website of public services, and, moreover, to everyone, and not only to himself. At the time of selection, you can take a screenshot of the screen; the information about the choice made by the person will remain in the system - and therefore the recount of votes will be possible at any time and on demand.

If the supporters of United Russia are filled with great pride to belong to the "party of the president", they should not be against such an innovation. I will say even more: an open vote can be voluntary: citizens secretly loving the Kremlin may not disclose to whom they voted, but the disclosed choice of the rest will be enough to make the voting results clear to almost certain percentages. Moreover, such a demand will be the first action in many years that can unite, and not quarrel, the politicians of the opposition camp.

If A. Venediktov is so sincerely convinced of the advantages of electronic voting, let him be the initiator of this initiative. I am convinced that none of the leadership of the "systemic" and "non-systemic" opposition parties will be against it. If electronic voting, as its apologists say, is pure and infallible, then the CEC will have no reason to object. Law No. 20 FZ "On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Federations on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot can not delete the last three words? The results can be striking, and the attitude to such a proposal of individual parties and citizens will very clearly determine their political position.

Or am I wrong?.."