ELECTRONIC VOTING IN RUSSIA AND ABROAD

Abstract

Introduction: the article analyzes the systems of electronic voting in Russia and foreign countries. Purpose: to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting systems used in Russia and across the world and to develop recommendations for improving Russian electoral law. Methods: general scientific methods; special scientific methods, including comparative legal and systemic ones. Results: the development of information and communication technologies in recent years facilitates their use in all spheres of public life, including in the implementation of democracy. The introduction of electronic voting into the Russian legal system pursues the following goals: to increase the voting turnout, including on the part of persons with reduced mobility or when voting outside the place of residence; to increase the transparency of election; to reduce the time it takes to count the votes and publish the election results; to reduce the costs of organizing and conducting elections; to make the forms of citizen participation in democratic processes corresponding to the level of the development of society. Conclusions: the state automated system ‘Vybory’(Eng. – ‘Election’) used in Russia operates in an autonomous mode, i.e. without the possibility of information transmission via the Internet, which increases its reliability and prevents unauthorized interference or change in the voting results initiated from the outside; nevertheless, there remains a loophole for falsification of voting results when the data is transmitted from polling stations to territorial election commissions (TECs), which is a problem that requires solution. Signatures in support of a candidate/lists of candidates in electronic form must be collected exclusively through the web portal of public services ‘Gosuslugi’. Remote electronic voting in elections in Russia should provide voters with the opportunity to repeatedly change their will until the end of the voting periodas this would prevent the possible use of ‘administrative resources’ and bribery of the voters.