Introduction
In recent years, the use of blockchain technology has gained traction across various industries, including the financial and public sectors. One of the more ambitious proposals is the application of blockchain technology to voting systems, with the promise of increasing transparency, security, and accessibility. This essay delves into the findings of The Democracy to Come? An Enquiry Into the Vision of Blockchain-Powered E-Voting Start-Ups by Miranda Imperial, a study that critically examines how blockchain-powered e-voting (BPE) start-ups conceptualize their technology and its role in enhancing democratic outcomes. The study employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) to explore how these start-ups communicate their vision and values, revealing deeper assumptions about democracy, technology, and power relations.
The Rise of Blockchain-Powered E-Voting
Blockchain technology offers a decentralized, secure, and transparent method of conducting transactions and storing information, making it an attractive solution for voting systems. As traditional voting methods face criticisms related to security, accessibility, and efficiency, several blockchain start-ups have emerged, offering BPE solutions aimed at addressing these concerns. Among the most prominent are Agora, Democracy Earth, Follow My Vote, Polys, Voatz, Votem, and VoteWatcher. These start-ups advocate for the adoption of blockchain technology to facilitate online voting, promising a more secure and transparent electoral process.
The document highlights how these start-ups frame their technology as a necessary fix for the flaws of current voting systems. The argument often follows the logic that existing methods, such as paper ballots and electronic voting machines, are outdated, vulnerable to manipulation, and inefficient. For instance, Agora emphasizes the vulnerabilities in traditional voting systems, describing them as “slow, costly, and exposed to vulnerabilities.” Such language frames blockchain as a panacea for these issues, capable of restoring trust in democratic institutions by making elections more secure and transparent.
Technological Determinism and the Vision of Democracy
A critical observation made in Imperial’s study is the extent to which BPE start-ups subscribe to a form of technological determinism—the idea that technology itself can determine social and political outcomes. This narrative positions blockchain technology as the primary driver of democratic reform, with little regard for the broader societal, political, and economic factors that shape democracy.
One of the recurring themes in the discourse of these start-ups is the conflation of voting with democracy itself. By focusing on the procedural aspects of voting, these companies reduce the concept of democracy to the act of casting a vote, neglecting the importance of deliberation, civic engagement, and collective decision-making. Imperial points out that this technocratic vision of democracy prioritizes efficiency and security over the more communal and participatory aspects of democratic life. For example, while Democracy Earth promotes a “borderless commons” facilitated by blockchain, it largely overlooks the deeper, more complex relationships between citizens and their governments, instead promoting a vision of democracy that revolves around individual voter empowerment.
The Role of Power and Inequality
One of the most significant findings from the study is the way BPE start-ups handle—or fail to handle—the question of power and inequality in democracy. While blockchain technology is often promoted as a tool for decentralization and democratization, the study reveals that many of these start-ups do not sufficiently address the power dynamics inherent in technological development and adoption.
Imperial notes that the start-ups in question tend to focus their messaging on individuals who are already technologically literate and able to navigate the complexities of blockchain. This overlooks large segments of the population who may lack access to digital technologies or the skills to use them effectively. The assumption that technology can automatically solve democratic problems without addressing issues of access and inequality is a major limitation of the BPE vision. Voatz, for example, frames its platform as accessible and user-friendly, but the broader societal challenges of digital literacy and the digital divide are not addressed in their discourse.
Furthermore, the study draws attention to the economic motivations of these start-ups. Many of the companies studied are backed by venture capital and have business models focused on profitability. This introduces a potential conflict between the public good of democratic reform and the private interests of profit-driven technology companies. The emphasis on efficiency and cost-effectiveness in many of these start-ups’ narratives reveals an underlying neoliberal logic, where democratic processes are viewed through the lens of market principles rather than as collective, civic endeavors.
Democratic Deficit and Citizen Participation
One of the key challenges identified in the study is the question of citizen participation. While BPE start-ups claim to empower individuals by making voting more accessible and secure, their vision of participation is largely limited to the act of voting itself. This reflects a narrow understanding of democracy, where the role of citizens is confined to casting a ballot, rather than engaging in ongoing deliberation and decision-making processes.
Imperial highlights the tension between individual rights and collective participation in democratic theory, pointing out that BPE start-ups tend to emphasize the former at the expense of the latter. For example, Votem and Follow My Vote promote their platforms as empowering individual voters, but there is little mention of how these platforms might foster collective action or community engagement. The study suggests that by focusing solely on the individual voter, these start-ups risk reinforcing the democratic deficit—the sense that citizens are disconnected from the political processes that shape their lives.
Security, Privacy, and Accountability
A final area of concern raised in the study is the issue of security, privacy, and accountability. While blockchain technology is often promoted as a solution to the security vulnerabilities of traditional voting systems, Imperial’s study points out that many of the start-ups fail to address the ongoing security risks associated with BPE. The report cites research from experts in the field, such as Park et al. (2020), who argue that blockchain does not inherently solve the fundamental security problems of electronic voting. The potential for attacks, privacy breaches, and lack of transparency in the development and implementation of these technologies remains a significant hurdle for BPE.
For instance, Voatz, one of the start-ups analyzed in the study, faced significant criticism for its lack of transparency and the security vulnerabilities in its mobile voting platform. Independent researchers found serious flaws in the app’s security, which could have allowed malicious actors to interfere with the voting process. These issues highlight the need for greater scrutiny and accountability in the development of blockchain-based voting systems.
Conclusion
The study by Miranda Imperial offers a critical examination of the claims made by BPE start-ups and raises important questions about the relationship between technology and democracy. While blockchain technology holds promise for improving the security and accessibility of voting systems, the study reveals that many of the start-ups promoting BPE are limited by a narrow, technocratic vision of democracy. By focusing on procedural efficiency and individual voter empowerment, these start-ups risk overlooking the deeper challenges of inequality, power, and collective participation that are essential to a healthy democratic system.
Ultimately, the study suggests that while blockchain may offer a useful tool for improving certain aspects of voting, it cannot on its own solve the broader democratic challenges facing modern societies. For BPE to truly contribute to democratic reform, it must be accompanied by a more holistic approach that addresses issues of access, participation, and power. Without such an approach, the promise of blockchain-powered democracy may remain unfulfilled.
