Could Blockchain Change The Way We Vote? A Rhode Island Author Explores The Idea

Every election seems to bring familiar conversations about voter turnout, election security, accessibility, technology and, perhaps most importantly, public trust.

But there's another question I think is worth asking:

Subscribe

What could the future of voting actually look like?

That's a question I've been thinking about for some time, and it's the subject of my recently released book, Making A Case For Holding Political Elections On The Blockchain.

I want to be upfront about that connection because I believe transparency matters, particularly when we're talking about elections.

This isn't a news story about my book. It's a commentary about an idea that I believe deserves a broader conversation.

Blockchain is most commonly associated with cryptocurrency, but the underlying technology has applications that go well beyond digital currency. At its most basic level, blockchain can provide a way of recording and verifying information in a manner designed to make unauthorized changes difficult to conceal.

That naturally raises an interesting question: Could similar technology someday have a role in elections?

I'm not suggesting that Rhode Island should replace its current voting system with blockchain tomorrow.

There are serious questions that would have to be answered first.

How would we protect voter privacy? How would we prevent cyberattacks? How would we make sure every voter, regardless of age, income, ability or access to technology, could participate? What happens when technology fails?

And perhaps the biggest question of all: Would voters actually trust such a system?

Those aren't minor concerns. They're fundamental.

Technology by itself doesn't create trust. In fact, introducing technology into something as important as an election could create entirely new concerns.

That's why I believe the discussion should be bigger than simply asking whether blockchain is "good" or "bad" for elections.

We should be asking what problems we are trying to solve and whether emerging technologies might offer useful tools for solving them.

As a Rhode Islander, I find this particularly interesting because our state has a long tradition of civic participation at the local level. From town meetings to polling places, Rhode Islanders have plenty of opportunities to participate directly in government.

At the same time, we're living in an increasingly digital world.

We communicate digitally. We conduct business digitally. We manage our finances digitally. We interact with government digitally.

So it seems reasonable to at least ask what that could mean for elections in the decades ahead.

That doesn't mean abandoning everything that works today.

It means being willing to examine new ideas before deciding they aren't worth exploring.

My book is simply my contribution to that conversation. I'm not presenting blockchain as a magic solution to the challenges facing elections. Instead, I'm asking readers to consider what might be possible and, perhaps more importantly, what questions we should be asking now.

We don't have to embrace every new technology.

But we shouldn't automatically dismiss an idea simply because it sounds unfamiliar.

The future of voting won't be determined by one technology, one political party or one author.

It will ultimately be shaped by voters and communities deciding what they want their democratic institutions to look like.

That's a conversation I think is worth having.

Editor's note: Tony Jones is a Patch contributor and the author of Making A Case For Holding Political Elections On The Blockchain. This article is a first-person commentary on the subject of the book, rather than an independent news report.

Making A Case For Holding Political Elections On The Blockchain is available through Barnes & Noble.