It’s election season on campus here at UC Santa Barbara and involved students are running around being grotesquely genial to everyone within their blast zone.
Some are asking for votes directed their way, but others are pleading with people to vote for anyone, anyone at all, as long as a vote is cast. This is because in order for the election to be deemed valid, there must be at least a 20% turnout. No 20%? No election.
Of course, low voter turnout is not exclusive to Santa Barbara. It is difficult to get people to do things from which they cannot see an immediate and direct benefit, especially when they need to take time off work on a Tuesday and stand in line for half an hour.
If only there was a way for people to vote quickly and easily, without having to seek out their local polling place.
What, you mean vote by SMS?
Absolutely. If texting’s security and ease of use has progressed to the point where Africans are using it for online banking, then it doesn’t take a massive mental leap to arrive at voting through SMS.
Indeed, voting by text message is already being implemented in some countries, so if the US doesn’t act quickly, the country may find itself left in the technological dust.
In 2008, the Estonian parliament decided to offer SMS as an alternative to regular ballot box voting by the 2011 general election, and it seems as if everything is going to plan.
Voters have been told to fit a special chip – available for free – to their phones, which applies a digital signature to the text message, validating the vote.
Of course, it remains to be seen how well the system will work.
On the one hand, sending in votes by text will certainly make it easier for citizens to perform their civic duty, but on the other, there are serious safety and reliability issues that come with the text territory.
Similar criticisms leveled at e-voting – including the potential for manipulation or vulnerability to hackers – will doubtless be volleyed onto SMS voting. But, aside from the virtual, there are physical mobile issues to be mulled over too.
Perhaps, say critics, phones would be actively stolen with the intent to rig elections. Or, less dramatically, political parties could potentially buy up hundreds or thousands of new phones with the same intent.
While these may not be highly probable outcomes, the issues -political and otherwise – should be thoroughly thought through. Even the ability of a friend to vote while the cell phone’s owner is sleeping is a critical voter identity issue.
As a political science major myself, however, I wonder whether we should bother ourselves with battling voter apathy at all.
The 43% of eligible Americans who chose not to vote in 2008 presumably made that choice because of lack of either information or care. Had they been given the ability to vote on the fly, or even vote drunk (as I imagine some would), would their choice be the best for the country?
Making people take time out of their day to vote may act as a positive self-selection tool for our chosen form of self-governance. Those who care take time to vote, those who don’t, live with the consequences.
Philosophical arguments aside, text messaging could certainly be used as a tactic. Democrats, for example, would do well to recognize the benefits of SMS voting before it’s too late.
Since the Democratic voter base tends to skew younger and tech-savvier, the party should attempt to implement a text voting policy while still in control of both the Congress and the Presidency.
Who knows, it might just help save their butts come November.
