The Electoral Commission (EC) announced on Thursday that it is ready to test long-distance voting for domestic migrants so they don’t have to travel back to their home states to vote. This is related to EC’s recognition of migration-related disenfranchisement. In a press statement, the European Commission said it hoped the move would increase voter turnout and strengthen India’s democratic process.
In its statement, the commission said it has developed a prototype multi-constituency electronic remote voting machine (RVM) that can serve multiple constituencies from a single remote voting booth.
The European Commission invited all recognized eight national and 57 state political parties to demonstrate how the RVM works on January 16th and asked for their written comments by January 31st.
The Indian Express explains the reason for this move, the solution proposed by the EC, how RVMs might work and some concerns that need to be addressed.
The problem: migration-related disenfranchisement
While registered voters do not go to the polls for a variety of reasons, domestic migration in the Indian context is a major contributor.
According to the 2011 census (numbers will have risen since then), there are nearly 45.36 million migrants in India (both intrastate and interstate) — roughly 37 percent of the country’s population. Migration can be driven by a variety of different reasons, from marriage to natural disasters to employment.
According to EC’s concept note for RVMs, “Voters who are away from their home town on election day cannot travel to vote for various reasons, even if they wish to vote.” is denied. This directly contradicts the goal of the EK “Leave no voter behind”.
The proposed solution: Remote EVMs
To better understand this problem, the European Commission had formed a “Committee of Officers on Domestic Migrants” which presented a report in late 2016 after considering various possible solutions such as internet voting, proxy voting, early voting and postal voting for migrant workers had. However, all of these ideas were rejected for reasons such as the lack of ballot secrecy, the lack of sanctity of the “one person, one vote” principle, issues of accessibility for uneducated voters, and so on.
Therefore, a technological solution was proposed, based on the creation of a robust electoral roll and identification mechanisms (to prevent double elections), allowing voters to vote remotely in a safe and controlled environment.
The RVM was developed with the support of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL). It is based on the currently used EVM system.
The Technology: It allows voters from multiple constituencies to vote using the same machine
As the details of the technology continue to be fleshed out in EC’s demonstration on January 16th, EC’s concept note gives a good idea of what RVMs will look like.
The RVMs are “standalone, non-networked systems” that effectively provide the selector with the same experience as EVMs currently in use. They will be set up in remote out-of-state locations under conditions similar to current polling booths.
A diagram showing how RVMs will work (Source: The Election Commission)
The unique feature of RVMs is that a single Remote Ballot Unit (RBU) can serve multiple constituencies (up to 72) using a “dynamic election scoreboard” instead of the usual printed ballot on EVMs. The Ballot Unit Overlay Display (BUOD) shows the required candidates based on the constituency number read from the voter’s constituency map. A barcode scanning system is used to read these cards.
The election process is as follows: after a voter’s identity has been verified, their constituency card is read, and the constituency details and candidates are posted publicly. This is also privately displayed on the BUOD in the RBU of the RVM. The voter then votes, and each vote is stored in the voting machine’s control unit on a constituency basis.
The VVPAT system is said to work in the same way with the new technology.
Some important questions remain
The system has problems, some of which have been acknowledged by the EC itself.
First, migrants are not a unified and defined class with fluid identities, places, and situations. In relation to the transience of migration in India, the problem for the EC is to create a comprehensive definition of migrants that at the same time does not open the system to abuse. Are all migrant voters eligible? How long does a migrant have to stay away from home to qualify? The EC’s statement said that resolving this issue “will require more extensive consultations with various legal and political stakeholders”.
Second, how do RVMs enter the conversation in the context of rising questions about technology-based voting? With various countries rejecting EVMs for paper-based ballots, does this move have the potential to raise further questions about the sanctity of the voting process itself? While the EC claims that RVMs are just as secure as currently used EVMs, more technological components are bound to raise more questions.
Third, how does remote voting affect elections and campaigning? In a playing field that is far from level, remote voting can theoretically give an extra edge to larger parties and wealthier candidates who can campaign across the constituency and beyond.
