Â鶹´«Ã½

From Martyn Dunmore

I have to agree with the comment “electronic voting machines are threatening democracy” in your article, but not for any of the reasons given (14 February, p 6).

Certainly, the potential dangers of electronic vote-tampering and data loss are problems which need to be addressed. But a far more fundamental democratic right which risks being undermined is that of electors to cast their vote for none of the candidates. This is entirely different from simply not voting – which might just be an indication of apathetic indifference – since it proves a willingness to engage in the democratic process.

You refer in the article to a recent election in Florida in which direct recording electronic voting machines (DREs) “recorded 134 blank votes out of about 10,000 cast in an election that was decided by just 12 votes”. The conclusion drawn by some observers, namely that 134 people cannot simply have walked away without casting their vote because “that is unlikely in a simple election like this one, with just two candidates” is naive. What option does the dissatisfied elector have other than to walk away if presented with only two candidates, neither of whom he or she wishes to vote for?

If electronic voting procedures are to democratically reflect the old paper voting system, electors must be given the option of indicating that they find none of the candidates worthy of their vote, and must also be provided with a comments box as the electronic equivalent of spoiling their ballot paper – an effective means of informing those analysing the results of the reasons for their non-vote.

Kraainem, Belgium