The Push for Mobile Voting: A Multimillion-Dollar Mission
▼ Summary
– Bradley Tusk, a political consultant, is funding the development of mobile voting technology through his Mobile Voting Foundation to increase voter turnout and improve democracy.
– The VoteSecure protocol, developed with security expert Joe Kiniry, is an open-source, cryptography-based system for secure voting on mobile devices and is being adopted by election technology vendors.
– Tusk believes mobile voting can address low participation in elections, especially primaries, by making voting as accessible as common phone activities like banking and messaging.
– Critics, including cryptographers like Ron Rivest and David Jefferson, argue that mobile voting faces insurmountable security risks and lacks peer-reviewed validation despite its open-source approach.
– Tusk plans to start with small-scale elections to prove the technology’s viability, aiming for eventual public trust and legislative acceptance, though experts caution against its use in national elections currently.
At a Washington, D.C. conference on election technology, security specialist Joe Kiniry received an unexpected proposal. A representative for a wealthy benefactor approached him, seeking ideas for voting systems that could boost participation. Kiniry’s immediate response was cautionary: he warned against internet voting due to its extreme complexity. Only later did he discover the inquiry came from Bradley Tusk, a New York political strategist known for helping companies like Uber navigate regulatory challenges. Tusk, enriched by early investments in tech firms, was prepared to invest heavily in developing online voting tools. Despite initial reservations, Kiniry agreed to collaborate, viewing the project as a significant research opportunity.
The partnership has now produced VoteSecure, an open-source cryptographic protocol unveiled by Tusk’s Mobile Voting Foundation. Designed to enable secure voting via iPhones and Android devices, the system is publicly accessible on GitHub for testing and development. Two election technology vendors have already committed to adopting the protocol, potentially as soon as 2026. Tusk argues that mobile voting could revitalize democratic engagement, though he acknowledges that winning over lawmakers and citizens presents the toughest hurdle.
Tusk’s dedication to mobile voting dates back several years. Starting around 2017, he financed pilot elections allowing military personnel and individuals with disabilities to vote using existing digital platforms. To date, he has poured an estimated $20 million into the initiative and plans to continue funding it aggressively. His motivation stems from a belief that low voter turnout lies at the heart of governmental dysfunction. He contends that dismal participation in primaries and local elections leads to poor or corrupt governance, arguing that higher turnout would push politicians toward the political center and reduce partisan conflict.
For Tusk, the logic behind mobile voting is straightforward. People already rely on smartphones for banking, shopping, and private communications, why not voting? He frames the issue in urgent terms, suggesting that without such innovations, the nation’s future could be at risk. When existing online voting platforms fell short of Kiniry’s exacting standards, Tusk opted to build a new system from the ground up. Kiniry’s firm, Free & Fair, developed VoteSecure as a backend protocol that allows voters to confirm ballot accuracy and verify that their vote was received and recorded on paper.
Tusk’s strategy involves introducing mobile voting in smaller-scale local elections, such as city council or school board races, to demonstrate its viability. He points to planned pilots in Alaska as a starting point, downplaying concerns about foreign interference in municipal contests. While Kiniry agrees that mobile voting is not yet ready for national elections, Tusk envisions a future where digital ballots gain public trust and become irreplaceable. Still, convincing a skeptical public and expert community remains a formidable challenge.
Cryptographers and security researchers remain the most vocal critics of mobile and internet voting. Ron Rivest, co-inventor of the RSA encryption algorithm and a Turing Award recipient, insists the technology is not mature enough for real-world use. He argues that Tusk’s practical, rollout-focused approach is misguided, emphasizing that peer-reviewed research, not just publicly posted code, should precede adoption.
Computer scientist David Jefferson echoes these concerns. Although he respects Kiniry’s expertise, he believes Tusk’s project is destined to fail. Even with advanced cryptography and open-source transparency, Jefferson maintains that online voting systems are inherently vulnerable to threats that cannot be fully eliminated. In his view, no cryptographic solution can adequately address the profound security risks involved in digital ballot casting.
(Source: Wired)
