WHY I PREFER TO VOTE PHYSICALLY

◦ On September 26, 2005 the Estonians e-elections information system was put into operations. This was preceded by rather serious discussions about reasonability of the system, and a dispute between president and parliament.

◦  Main arguments brought by supporters of e-elections were arguably higher security of the electronic system, savings in time and effort for voters, and innovativeness of the system.

◦  These arguments certainly have weight; yet, counterarguments that are also strong are quite obvious.

◦  The critical element in election system security are the humans who operate the system. An electronic system manned by a small team of IT specialists is not more secure per se, because IT people are not immune to corruption, as a current corruption scandal shows. The small number of people who control the system does not automatically reduce the risk of corruption; the opposite can be true.

◦  Argued savings in citizens’ time cannot be taken seriously. A half-hour walk to election site once for four years is not a large time expense. Exploring the new time also takes time.

◦  Materialization or non-materialization of these argued benefits, however, in our opinion, is not the main concern in the issue.

◦  To clear up the controversy around e-election, we must go back to the basic concepts of state, citizen, and their relationship. Essential features of a state are: (1) control over concrete territory; (2) a body of citizens who inhabit that territory. Without territory, a state is only a fiction.

◦  Human has mind; but human also has a body. There cannot be a person without a body. As we see, both state and human have physical extension as inseparable part of their nature.

◦  I argue, that a few fundamental acts of a person towards state are essentially bodily acts, that inavoidably require appearance physicially. These sacramental act of citizenry are: (1) participating in democratic elections; 2) defending the country; 3) presenting in court.

◦  Voting physically is necessary, because this is the only way for the citizen to show and prove his or her physical existence and direct willingness to participate in building the state.

◦  E-elections allow elect from every point of the world. Physical substance of the person becomes unnecessary.

◦  A citizen who is willing to defend his state, must show up in time of need. It is not possible to defend or re-establish a state only by activities abroad or in media sphere. Recent ‘orange revolutions’ in Ukraine and Georgia have shown, once again, that democratic elections mean not only information processing operations in cozy home setting, but physical action on streets, if necessary.

◦  Handling matters in Estonian court still is possible, at least in principle, orally – and for good reasons. The final truth is established in direct, oral argument.

◦  Of course, information systems must be used, to save citizens’ time. But current building of e-state systems have proceeded from narrow technocratic viewpoints. Deeper analysis, on philosophical level, is needed. When such system building goes too far, it will violate the unity of human mind and body; it will also displace the traditional concept of state. State has become understood as a large information system.