Digital voting can take different forms: using a voting machine at the polling station, or casting your vote online from home. The Netherlands already has some experience with voting computers, Van Rijswijk-Deij explains. "When it turned out that the secrecy of the vote could not be guaranteed, we stopped using them immediately, and rightly so."
Faster isn’t always better
One common argument for digitalisation is speed. But Van Rijswijk-Deij calls that a misconception. Manual counting already delivers a nearly complete result within 24 hours. "Faster results might be convenient for the media, but they don’t make democracy any better. Speed is not a democratic argument."
The current system also has a key advantage: distributed risk. "Paper voting relies on hundreds of volunteers across the country. To manipulate the outcome, you’d need to intervene in many different places at once. As soon as you digitise the process, you concentrate power in just a few systems and in the hands of those who build and manage them. That changes the entire threat landscape."
I trust the red pencil.
The tempting middle ground
There are hybrid options, such as the so-called voting printer: a machine where voters make their choice digitally, which then prints a paper ballot to be placed in the box. "In theory, that sounds convenient," says Van Rijswijk-Deij. "You get a quick provisional result and can still count paper ballots afterwards. But what if the paper count and the digital tally don’t perfectly match? Which one takes precedence? Unless that’s absolutely clear, you risk creating doubt, and that’s fatal for trust in elections."
"We already have a system that works well and can be verified. If you want to change it, you must offer at least the same level of safeguards."
Convenience isn’t the same as engagement
Online voting is often promoted as a way to increase turnout. But convenience and civic engagement are not the same thing, Van Rijswijk-Deij argues. "The question isn’t just how many people vote, but whether they understand what they’re doing and why it matters. Voting isn’t a five-star review, it’s taking part in how we govern our country."
Part of the process is already digital: the collection and counting of votes use open-source software that anyone can inspect. "But the crucial step, casting the vote itself, remains on paper. And I see no convincing reason to change that," he says.
Back to the ‘why’
For Van Rijswijk-Deij, the real question isn’t how to vote digitally, but why we would want to. "We have a system that works, is transparent, and can be checked by anyone. That’s the foundation of trust in our democracy. Until there’s a truly better alternative, I’ll stick with the red pencil."
