A Digital Dilemma: West Virginia’s Shift from Voatz

On February 27, West Virginia made a noticeable U-turn in its approach to digital voting by opting out of using the blockchain-based platform Voatz for its upcoming primary elections. Instead, the state will go with Democracy Live, a more conventional platform allowing voters to fill out or mail their ballots. This shift highlights an ongoing struggle as states grapple with how to maintain election security while also accommodating residents with disabilities and expatriates.

The Investment Connection

Interestingly, both Democracy Live and Voatz share an illustrious investor, entrepreneur Bradley Tusk. While Tusk’s portfolio spans various industries, this particular tech connection raises eyebrows as both platforms strive to innovate voting methods.

The MIT Report: Voatz Under Fire

West Virginia’s retreat from Voatz follows a recent audit by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published on February 13, which couldn’t have been more critical. The report illuminated serious vulnerabilities within Voatz, stating,

“Voatz has vulnerabilities that allow different kinds of adversaries to alter, stop, or expose a user’s vote.”

The 2018 Experience

Voatz didn’t come into West Virginia’s electoral scene blind. The platform was used during the 2018 midterm elections without any reported security breaches. However, hindsight is 20/20, and with the MIT findings warning state officials of possible risks, it seems the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Public Trust vs. Tech Solutions

Donald Kersey, the general counsel to West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, added a layer of complexity to the conversation, stating,

“If the public doesn’t want it, or is skeptical to the point they’re not confident in the results, we have to take that into consideration.”

There’s nothing like a little public skepticism to force a governmental change of heart. In the world of voting, trust is everything.

Lessons from Iowa

West Virginia’s concern with Voatz isn’t unfounded given Iowa’s chaotic experience during the February 3 Democratic Party caucus. A smartphone voting app developed by Shadow Inc. caused multiple days of confusion and delayed results. Insufficient training for volunteers and officials, along with untested technology, led to errors that made many voters feel like they were stuck in a digital labyrinth. In the end, the party had to revert to paper results—a bit like using a typewriter in a world of laptops.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Voting Technology

The current atmosphere of skepticism surrounding digital voting platforms begs the question: where does this leave innovation in electoral processes? As states like West Virginia step back to assess, it’s clear that technology must take a backseat to security and public trust. While we desperately want to evolve, let’s not reinvent the wheel into something that doesn’t roll.