Like everything else in the world, the (at least short-term) future of elections has been significantly shook by COVID-19. Alaska and Wyoming have shifted their primary and caucus, respectively, to be entirely by mail. South Korea has mandated all voters wear gloves and masks, get their temperature checked, and be “sprayed with hand sanitizer” before casting their ballot on April 15th. Singapore, preparing for the possibility that this may continue into next year, has tabled a new bill accommodating voters and candidates who are sick or subject to stay-at-home orders. Amidst all of this, Wisconsin proceeded with their primary elections today (based on one viral picture, I don’t think people were too happy about it).
The Wisconsin primary brought not only long lines and many homemade masks, but also a controversial Supreme Court decision. The Court’s 5 conservative-leaning justices determined the narrow question of whether mail-in ballots postmarked after April 7th could count. Their answer: no. This modified U.S. District Judge Conley’s decision that extended the deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots to April 13th, specifying that all valid ballots received by that date would be counted, regardless of when they were postmarked. Queen of Dissent, RBG, highlights the exceptional circumstances which have caused backlogs in delivering the requested ballots, resulting in potentially thousands of Wisconsinites having to decide whether to brave the crowds or forfeit their vote entirely. Obviously, voter disenfranchisement has been an issue that the United States and other countries have struggled with, and a global pandemic adds a new dimension to this problem.
It’s impossible to say yet how future elections should be handled, but it seems abundantly clear that it cannot just be business as usual. Whatever your stance on absentee voting, I think most people will concede that there must be alternatives that take into account the current health risks. Does technology have a role to play here, or will we have to rely on the postman? American elections’ most recent brush with technology (hello, Iowa Caucus) didn’t instill too much confidence in anyone. I think there would have to be a major jump in cyber-security capabilities, and equally importantly, a shift in people’s perspectives, in order for online voting to even be a possibility. The democratic process is fundamental to so many societies that any change, though not substantive, would be viewed with suspicion nearing fear. Yet we have seen that elections are not immune to cyber attacks. Perhaps if technology were to be fully embraced as part of the process, more attention would be given to security, thus eliminating some of the unknown vulnerabilities? I do not have a good answer to the question I posed with the title of this post, but I am keen to see what plays out.
Sources:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/a1206bd6-28e2-4020-a4fb-fa4e8ce99da0
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/07/828002736/south-koreans-will-vote-in-election-in-masks-and-gloves-have-temperature-checked
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucus-explained.html
I think this epidemic could increase the voter turnout. If you think about it people are inherently lazy and really do not care about voting. So, since they have been trapped inside their homes for months, people are going to think “No, I can’t skip out on voting because I took advantage of it before Covid” People might want to vote because they have been so informed about what the government does in these crisis, that they might want to go and exercise their vote.