Proposition 50K0775

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 11 avril 1994 organisant le vote automatisé, ainsi que le Code électoral.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 30, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of elections election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

LE FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Ferdy Willems (N-VA) voted to reject.
• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Georges Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Jean-Paul Moerman (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, the Government Agreement provides that automatic voting will be evaluated. This is a point on which reforms are announced after evaluation. However, today we find that the evaluation is reduced to its simplest expression. Nevertheless, the government advocated the development in this agreement of a system that is simpler, more accessible and more controlled by citizens. What is the content of this project? The dominant impression is that one refines on the surface, one takes a number of cosmetic measures that, in my opinion, do not go at all in the direction announced by the government agreement. I do not think that things will become simpler, more accessible and actually more controllable by the citizen if the measures proposed by this project are taken. One once again avoids a real substantive debate, not giving priority to technical, computer or electronic issues, but incorporating ethical concerns or principles that must govern democracy. In a parliamentary committee, the hearings were unfortunately limited to hearings of experts and representatives of different IT firms. The Minister and the Director-General of National Legislation and Institutions shall refuse to give access to administrative documents relating to automated voting to persons and associations who request it. This constitutes an infringement against Article 32 of the Constitution which provides that everyone has the right to consult any administrative document, is in contradiction with the laws of 11 April 1994 relating to the publicity of the administration and of 29 July 1991 relating to the formal motivation of administrative acts, and does not take into account the opinion of the CADA, Commission for the Access to Administrative Documents, which however recommended the Minister to give a favorable answer. All this is commented, in particular in the Journal des Tribunaux of 29 January 2000, on page 107. This, however, gives rise to some discomfort compared to a problem raised for several years and which concerns not so much the technical aspects of the device set up but rather a number of principled problems that remain. Of course, Mr. Minister, the debate remains open, but as in the song of Pierre Perret, Le bonheur, c’est toujours pour demain. Thus, we are still waiting for the debate on the ethical aspect of things. You will understand that in this regard, it seems difficult for us to continue towards what seems to me more and more like an impasse, while all the elements of a complete assessment are brought together. I want to speak of the assessment of the panel of experts, in support of the report that has been submitted to us, on a number of anomalies and incidents found, for example, on 13 June 1999. I also want to speak of elements of critical analysis, emanating from both the Human Rights League and other associations, or even some municipalities, which issue on this automated vote findings and objections of substance. On the other hand, it would seem that an interesting alternative is presented today: optical reading when cleaning off. This is another technology, equally attractive by the benefits it could bring and that would deserve more investments, research than those commonly accepted so far. It would allow, if its effectiveness, its reliability were proven – which is not yet quite the case – to ⁇ the following objectives: acceleration, simplification, but without shrinking the principle of the secrecy of the vote and its democratic control. This system offers, in my opinion, a possibility of getting out from the top of the impasse in which we are mistaken and the risks to which it exposes us more or less soon, whether there is really what is agreed to be called dysfunction, or whether there is a clever and persistent doubt about the quality and reliability of these famous machines to vote automatically. I repeat, the evaluation elements were combined. First we have the report of the College of Experts which, from a number of problems, makes several findings. He notes that in one of three offices, technical problems arose, which I think contradicts the aim of simplifying voting. Voting is not simplified if in one of three offices technical problems continue to arise. As for the final results of the elections of 13 June 1999, they were only available after a rather long period of time. The demonstration is therefore made that the removal operations are not accelerated, as could have been hoped in view of the primary objectives of the project establishing automated voting. In addition, in some municipalities, there have been problems of premature ageing of the equipment. I quote in this regard the report of the College of Experts (pages 41 and 42): Unused between two elections, the hardware, and ⁇ the optical pen, seems exposed to a problem of premature aging. Compared to previous elections, the number of technical incidents due to this type of problems has multiplied. Therefore, a number of technical problems remain clearly present. The promises of simplification, acceleration, and above all of technological infallibility made in 1994, when the introduction of this principle of automated voting, therefore, seem to us very far away. Obviously, scientific progress and multiple checks helping, one can always hope that one will one day come to solve these technical problems. But beyond these problems, I would like to question the very principle of automated voting. Because, in the background, it is difficult to bypass the problem related to the impossibility for voting citizens - and they will be 3,200,000 at the next elections on October 8 - to control the corresponding retranscription, on the magnetic strip of the card used, of the vote issued. This node, I have already approached it in several ways, imagining strategies, stratagems, artyzes even to try to solve it, without ever actually reaching it. There is, for example, the impossibility for the citizen to be right about a possible error of the machine without resorting to a third party or without asking to have a paper bulletin, that is, without risking to disclose, at least partially, the vote he has issued. Indeed, if you vote, but the machine gives a wrong confirmation, two options are available to you. Either you turn to an expert to control the machine, and yet it would be necessary that there is in the polling station a person sufficiently competent to do so. And in this case, you take the risk of having to disclose the content of your vote to that expert or at least the mistake that was made. And thus the secrecy of the vote, an important constitutional principle, is partially eroded. Either you use a paper bulletin, but in so far as such errors are not systematic, one can imagine that these paper bulletins are detectable, traceable. And here too, the problem of the secrecy of the partially eroded vote arises. This seems to me a difficult difficulty to bypass as long as in this context of secret vote, the ability to control the conformity of the magnetic tape and its content recorded to the vote that it actually issued, automatically escapes the citizen, given the electronic and computer nature of the process. There is a real principle problem here. I would like to quote you, not the League of Human Rights, not the Association for an Ethics of Automated Voting, but the report of the collegium of experts itself, some passages of which are interesting: (...) The fundamental criticism that can be formulated regarding electronic voting is the lack of transparency for the voter. His vote is digitized and converted into invisible magnetic fields on disquets and digital cards. Mr. Minister, ladies, gentlemen, you may tell me that all the banal and daily operations are done electronically and you will ask me why so many questions are asked and so many problems are imagined about automated voting. I will answer you. It is true that the fact of typing a letter using computerized text processing or giving a payment order through the so-called self- or phone banking methods has become relatively banal for many of us. In these two cases, as in many others where the operation performed is not covered by the secret, there is always the option to address a third party to obtain correction of the possible error of the machine. And in the man-machine conflict that arises, the third party can serve as witness, arbitrator and rectificator of the machine without the principle of secrecy being altered since, in one of the two examples I gave, secrecy is not an absolute requirement as in the case of voting where, if one wishes to safeguard this constitutional principle of secrecy, one is facing an impasse. Beyond this question concerning a constitutional guarantee, there are also a series of practical problems that this project, in my opinion, does not solve, far from that. Other questions still arise for people less educated or less familiar with computer science in general, for people whose vision is defective in front of systems requiring the consultation of a screen and for older people who, in some cases, cumulate the two disabilities I just mentioned. Unlike voting on paper bulletin, automated voting does not allow you to simultaneously view all the proposed lists, given the narrow nature of the available screen. This may sometimes be a overcoming problem that does not cause too many difficulties. Take, for example, all situations, including the local elections on October 8th, where a large number of lists are present. Automatically, we are faced with a problem because the device of automated voting, screen voting, compels the voter to go first through the list before accessing the box that corresponds to the candidate who will benefit from his choice. Recognize that for a majority that has reaffirmed for several months its willingness to reduce the weight of party membership and to value a little more the choices of personal preferences of the voter, there are some contradictions. Furthermore, since this screen does not allow to simultaneously view all the proposed lists as soon as there is a certain number of them, there is also a problem for the voter when he must take the bulletin and make a way to the candidate or the list that must benefit from his vote. The disadvantages of this type will be doubled in the elections of October 8 and I regret that. The bill that is presented to us today ultimately proposes a refinement of the system but it is rather a facade operation. When confronted with problems of practical application and above all of principles and ethics related to the image of democracy and its reliability, already sufficiently threatened by the current times, the responsibility of politics is to apply the principle of precaution, to wait before continuing to refine a system that has not proved itself and that, even in the previous elections, has demonstrated its relative vanity.

Mr. Decroly, this rarely happens to me, but I agree with the content of your argument for 90%. However, questions arise because, for the same reason, we have urged not to rush decisions. I remember that Ms. Dardenne said at the Conference of Presidents that it would be good to address these issues first globally and not to address one element on a timely basis. I agree 90% with you. I only note that you, as part of this majority, agree that this very limited subproject is now on the agenda and will be put to vote. I do not understand that well. Based on the comments heard and the report of the College of Experts, I had expected that this would be arranged in its globality. I am not saying this from the majority-opposition situation. I have heard a number of comments that you have formulated several times, both in municipal council and in parliamentary elections. The logical outcome of your argument is that this bill, which itself contains a number of good provisions, would not be voted in a hurry and that the problem in its entirety would be discussed. What is the voice of you and your group in this regard?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer in the place of Mrs. Dardenne on emergency procedures, nor in the place of anyone. The fact is that I will have one hundred and fifty of the political responsibility of this assembly in my hands, tomorrow at the time of the vote. I will exercise it in a manner consistent with what I have just said, that is to say, I will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that Mr. Van Peel points out here that it is important that we conduct a thorough debate on this issue. Mr. Van Peel, I advise you to consult with your colleague, Mr. Tant, on the substance of the case. In fact, Mr. Tant has, through all kinds of delaying manoeuvres, ensured that this problem could not be discussed in substance despite the proposals and the many questions that have been raised, especially from our group, in the committee he presides over.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by Mr. Van Peel’s astonished looks. I would like to point out that our group has repeatedly insisted on hearing a number of people, not only from machine builders and program designers, but also from critical groups. This should be done under the impetus of the chairman of the committee who has a significant contribution to the work of the committee. The hearings were limited. I agree with Mr Vanhoutte’s position. You can check this in your group.

Mr. Tant is not present here and cannot defend himself. I would not make an incident here.

Mr. Tante is not present. I know that Mr. Tante shares some comments with me. I think, by the way, these comments are shared on different banks. We have agreed that we will abstain from this bill because this bill regulates one element on a timely basis while we expected that the globality of the problem would be regulated. Mr. Tavernier, I can only assume that Mr. Tant, in his loyalty as chairman of the committee to the majority, has sought to resolve this yet soon. I will talk about it with him.

Mr. Speaker, if I can finish my story. The problem of automated voting is, in my view, not so much a problem of democratic control. It is primarily a problem of invisibility. Invisibility is something we experience in this complex society in more and more places. The financial transactions that are carried out on a large scale are actually invisible and very difficult to control for an outsider. When you enter the car, do not open the motor cap to see if the car can still drive. In order to do so, you make a confident appeal to your garage operator and the car inspection. The same applies to food safety. When you buy bread tomorrow at the baker, you don’t stand still with it. You de facto assume that control is of the kind that you can eat that bread without risk. In most cases, this trust will not be shamed either. During the dioxin crisis, however, we have been able to establish that errors can happen at certain times. We note that attempts have been made to create a good system to implement new technologies that offer many possibilities and greatly simplify the procedure. In this regard, I would like to point out that I also very well remember in my own congregation how difficult it is to mobilize enough people for the counts. This system, in any case, seems to provide an answer to this. In fact, I must conclude that this bill may not meet all the wishes and desires. The technology does not stand still, Mr. Minister. However, there are three points achieved. First, there are more and better checks planned by the College of Experts for the next election. We look forward to their report. Second, there is a little more transparency due to the fact that your voice becomes visible again at the end of the procedure. Third, the Minister has committed to conduct a debate on the evaluation of the College of Experts. I am absolutely not dissatisfied with what is proposed in this bill.

For the reasons explained by Vincent Decroly, Ecolo is against the principle of automated voting. In fact, this vote does not allow citizens to control the electoral process. Moreover, the control of the latter is left to both the machine and its experts. There is here a sort of deprivation of the citizen’s prerogatives, and we would like instead to go to the optical reading, which leaves a material trace, like Mr. Decroly explained it, that towards fully automated voting. That being said, what is the situation today? What are the elements present? First, there is no majority in this parliament to return to paper voting. Even if you are right, if you are right, you will not change the situation. Secondly, there is no real interest from the public on this subject. There are a few group groups, of course very active and who are right on a number of points they highlight, but there is really no priority on the subject in the population we are supposed to represent here and who has other topics of priority concern. Therefore, I believe that we have other answers to the expectations of this population than to pay for a government crisis. And most importantly, today’s vote is not about the principle of automated voting that was acquired a long time ago, but about a series of improvements proposed by the college of experts. For these reasons, the majority of the group will therefore vote for this project because it meets the recommendations of experts but, to mark our opposition to the principle of automated voting, which deprives the citizen of his prerogatives, there will nevertheless be in the group of votes that I will call bigarrés .

I can allow myself to be brief, in the first place because the project in question has a limited object. Our assemblies have decided to appoint experts in charge of controlling automated voting operations. As assemblies make such appointments of experts, they must be consistent with themselves and give meaning to the conclusions drawn by these experts. The bill currently submitted to the House has no other purpose than to reiterate purely and simply the suggestions made by these experts; they are able to offer additional and complementary guarantees with regard to the regularity of these operations. Since these were a number of positive advances, we considered it appropriate to implement them as soon as possible, i.e. for the next municipal and provincial elections on 8 October. A much more in-depth discussion on the future of automated voting is underway in the House Interior Committee. Automated voting already concerns more than 3,200,000 voters and, I must say, to their satisfaction, to the satisfaction of the municipalities that organize it, with the finding that automated voting causes fewer errors than paper voting. It fits perfectly in an evolution that I think is inevitable. We need to develop a pedagogical approach in this area. It is true that one must respond to the concerns, often unjustified, that may exist. It is necessary to ensure that a number of questions are answered and, if possible, provide additional guarantees as to the regularity of the operations. This is discussed in the Interior Committee. I did not want it to be fooled and to try, in the rush, to draw final conclusions. I believe that this discussion should be continued and I have indicated to a number of speakers that, personally, I was open to suggestions made in committee. by Mr. Viseur was honest: some are opposed to automated voting. This is their strictest right. That is their conviction. I will not try to convince them. Finally, a number of questions that are asked, proposals that are formulated, hearings that are suggested have ultimately no other purpose than to delay the formulation of a number of conclusions to generalize the device. I regret that two parliamentarians did not take the effort to participate, one at the discussion on the draft which is being submitted today for your approval, the other at the evaluation which has already taken several committee sessions.

Mr. Minister, Mrs. Genot would like to ask you a question.

I am looking forward to the debate in the renewal committee. I hope it will take place. Without wanting to be convinced, I would have wanted to know, Mr. Minister, what answer do you give to the question of democratic control?

Madam, if you had attended the many sessions of the Interior Committee that discussed this issue, you would have heard the precise and very technical answers that were brought to it. You refuse the machine. This is your strictest right.