Voters and politicians will need to feel confident that any smartphone-based voting system can authenticate registered voters.
Oct. 23, 2012 --
With just over two weeks until Election Day, the presidential candidates might feel tempted to promise the world to still-undecided voters when the two meet on the stage at Lynn University for their final debate. With so many promises made to so many constituencies over the course of a campaign, victorious candidates are bound to ignore or outright contradict pledges made in the run up to office. Voters are inclined to forgive one or two campaign pledges that were left behind after the race. But some promises are so big, that breaking them is not so easily forgotten.
Library of Congress
The U.S. presidential election in 1916 pitted incumbent president Woodrow Wilson against Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes. While Wilson was in office, conflict erupted in Europe to become what would be World War I. Although Americans generally supported Allied powers, voters wanted the United States to remain out of the conflict. To capitalize on public opinion on this issue, Wilson campaigned on the slogan, "He kept us out of war." Months after winning reelection, Wilson went to Congress to approve a declaration of war with Germany and its allies. Wilson have campaigned on the implicit promise American neutrality in World War I, but he never explicitly stated he would never lead the United States to join the war.
Library of Congress
Herbert Hoover's alleged campaign promise might seem too ambitious by today's standards, but with the phrase "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," Hoover gave a clear vision of the prosperity he envisioned for the country. This phrase was not issued by Hoover himself, though it certainly reflected the tenor of his campaign promises. Rather was used in a campaign advertisement published by the Republican Party. Less than a year after he took office, the stock market crash of 1929 heralded the Great Depression, the longest and deepest period of economic decline in the 20th century.
Amid a depression with no end in sight, Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned in 1932 on a promise of putting the nation back to work. Roosevelt criticized Hoover's inability to restore the nation to prosperity and even ridiculed the ballooning of the deficit under the Hoover administration. Upon taking office, however, Roosevelt's New Deal programs dramatically increased the federal budget deficit far beyond the levels achieved by his predecessor.
Like Wilson, Roosevelt maintained a policy of neutrality at the outbreak of World War II, and campaigned on the issue. Unlike Wilson, however, Roosevelt was unambiguous in his 1940 campaign declaration: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." One year later, Roosevelt would go back on the promise and lead the United States into war in response to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
Following his assumption of the office of the presidency after the assassination of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson was up for reelection in 1964 against Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. As his administration was making plans to escalate war in Vietnam, Johnson declared that his administration would not send ground troops into Vietnam. Months after being sworn in to another term of office, Johnson broke his promise, a move which lost him support with the public.
In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned for the presidency with a pledge to end the war in Vietnam that had been launched and administered by previous Democratic administrations. There were even reports that Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war without the United States being perceived as the losing side. Instead, Nixon continued to press American forces in Vietnam, resulting in an increase in combat deaths within just the first six months of Nixon assuming office.
In 1988, in his speech at the Republican National Convention to accept the Republican nomination for the presidency, George H.W. Bush made what might be the most famous broken promise in presidential history: "Read my lips: No new taxes." The phrase proved catchy and helped propel Bush to victory. Unfortunately, upon taking office, Bush inherited a national deficit from the previous administration, and with a Congress controlled by the opposition, had to raise taxes. The broken promise proved one of the major contributors for his failure to win reelection in 1992.
Downloading an election app on your smartphone could someday replace the need to join long lines of fellow voters, and it might make elections work better. Researchers have found that smartphone owners make fewer errors using a mobile voting system than when using traditional voting methods.
A mock election conducted by Rice University researchers showed how voting on smartphones offers a more user-friendly process compared to electronic voting machines or paper ballots, but only among voters already familiar with smartphones. If computer scientists can solve the related security challenges, mobile voting could help boost election participation among both young and old smartphone owners in the future.
"Nobody likes to wait in line at the polling place, and so mobile voting offers the opportunity to cast votes when and where it is convenient for the voter," said Phil Kortum, assistant professor of psychology at Rice University, in apress release.
Smartphone voting could do more than just improve voter participation by allowing individuals to vote using a familiar technology. It could also reduce the administrative costs of running polling stations and managing electronic voting machines or paper ballots.
The researchers recruited 84 study participants ranging in age between 18 and 68 years, including 48 smartphone owners. They also designed a mobile voting system, reporting the details in the January 2014 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Smartphone owners among the study participants made fewer mistakes while using the mobile voting system. But there was no significant difference in error rates for non-smartphone owners who used either the mobile voting system or traditional voting methods—a finding that implies room for improvement in possible future designs for mobile voting.
The study results could help shape future voting platforms and technologies at a time when smartphone ownership continues to rise in the United States and around the world. The Pew Research Internet Project found that about 56 percent of U.S. adults owned smartphones as of June 2013. (91 percent of U.S. adults owned some kind of phone.)
But don't expect to skip out of long lines for Election Day just yet. A mobile voting system or any type of remote, online voting process still faces huge security challenges that go beyond the technical glitches of electronic voting machines. Both voters and politicians will need to feel confident that any smartphone-based voting system can authenticate registered voters, as well as secure their votes against glitches or intentional hacking.
Secure online voting would almost certainly come first before any serious consideration of mobile voting systems. A 2009 Congressional effort to make voting more accessible for U.S. military personnel deployed overseas may pave the way for online voting on a broader basis.
In 2013, a number of computer scientists signed a statement endorsing the pilot program's efforts to make remote electronic voting a reality.
Get more from IEEE Spectrum
Reflections: Who Is the Crowd?
Repackaging the News for Smartphones
Marriage by Skype
This article originally appeared on IEEE Spectrum; all rights reserved.