Proposition 53K3229

Projet de loi organisant le vote électronique avec preuve papier.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electronic voting organisation of elections ballot paper election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Jan. 9, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, in the same meeting of 11 December 2013, the bill on the organization of electronic voting with paper evidence was also dealt with. It is also intended to enforce the arrangement before the next federal elections on 25 May.

In 201 of the 589 municipalities across the territory, electronic voting has already been conducted. Therefore, an evaluation was required and something had to be perfected. Therefore, the present draft law was drawn up.

It means that a new electronic voting system with paper evidence will be used. The voter gives his vote. At the last confirmation of his vote, the voting computer prints out a paper evidence. In this way, the voter can check whether his vote was recorded correctly. Of course, he must return that evidence and it will be deposited in an urn. That is the content of the bill.

A number of comments were formulated. Collega Logghe points out various difficulties of the electronic voting system in practice, just like Ms. Genot van Ecolo-Groen. The MR regrets, according to Mr. Ducarme’s opinion, that in the Waals Region this path has not yet been taken. The minister hopes that the spirits will mature and that there will be more uniformity.

The discussion was fully resolved at the same meeting. Mr Arens submitted amendments to align the provisions with the legislative changes resulting from the Senate reform. Eventually, the draft was approved with twelve votes in favour and two abstentions.

The N-VA can join the design: municipal autonomy remains guaranteed. The municipality can still decide whether to vote electronically on its territory or not. It is provided that the federal government can bear 20 % of the costs. We also consider it important that the recommendation of the State Council regarding the guidance of persons with disabilities has been followed. Therefore, we will also support the draft in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, in the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution profoundly troubled society; in particular, it promoted a change in the democratic and electoral approach.

Today, in the 21st century, it is a digital revolution that we are living; a revolution that some call the third industrial revolution and that profoundly changes our behaviors.

This also applies to everything concerning the relationship of individuals to the exercise of democracy. Thus, citizens have new ways to inform themselves, to debate and also to vote.

On the level of the electoral exercise, this revolution translates into the emergence of new ways of practicing voting.

Automated voting, more commonly referred to as electronic voting, is what the CRISP defines as "the process allowing the voter to issue his vote using a computer and an optical pen and to deposit the magnetic card on which his vote is recorded in an electronic urn."

In this area, our country is considered a pioneer. Electronic voting was used for the first time as a trial in 1991. The law of 11 April 1994 established the legal framework for its use; it has been modified several times since then.

Since its inception, electronic voting has raised many criticisms. The guarantee of transparency, the loyalty to the choices of the voter and the means of control that this type of vote allows are regularly replaced at the heart of the debates. These various criticisms have led to the adoption of certain measures aimed at strengthening democratic control over the proper functioning of this voting system.

The bill we are supposed to vote today strengthens the mechanisms that guarantee the transparency of the exercise of the vote. By providing a legal framework for the use of a new electronic voting system that will be accompanied by paper proof in the election of federal jurisdictions, this new provision extends the principle of democratic control of this voting system, taking into account the evolution of technologies and new democratic requirements.

Furthermore, this project responds constructively and pragmatically to the criticism that was formulated against automated voting.

In this regard, I would like to congratulate my colleague Corinne De Permentier: ten years ago, she filed a bill similar to the bill we are going to vote on. Unfortunately, at that time, it had to face certain conservatisms that my colleagues in the Walloon Parliament still have to face today, in 2014.

Indeed, if there is a good thing to formulate regarding this project, it is that in 2011, the wallon government decided to go back and reinstate paper voting in Wallonia, while some municipalities sometimes used the electronic system for twenty years with total satisfaction.

According to the Wallonian minister of local authorities, the modernity would therefore be to return to paper voting.

My view of modernity is not that. It is not a return to practices dating back to another century. On the contrary, I believe it is necessary and indispensable to adapt to the technological developments of our society. Where Wallonia chose to go backwards in 2011, the federal government chose modernity and transparency. This is a decision that I have made without any reservation.

I take advantage of the opportunity offered to me in this forum to ask my colleagues, who have some relays and contacts with the majority parties in Wallonia, to review their copy to homogenize the voting procedure in 2014.

The same request is addressed to you. As the sponsor of this project at the federal level, I do not doubt for a second that you will succeed in convincing your partners in the Walloon Region to opt for modernity rather than obsolescence.

This case is complex. Electronic voting tests have been conducted. This has created some problems. I am reminded of a rather surreal exchange I had with mr. Dewael on the event called "of Schaerbeek".

Thus, a candidate X from a small list, which nobody knew, had suddenly, at the time of counting, collected a greater number of votes than expected. The number was so aberrant that we realized the error. This was called a bit reversal that occurred at a certain point in the process of the computer. It had produced a figure so aberrant that this micro-list of Schaerbeek had won, in 2006, a score quite impossible. So, again, we scanned the entire electoral process and managed to find all the voting numbers and get them properly processed.

But let’s imagine that this small random bit change, as computer scientists call it, has generated an error in a more consistent party! It might not have been detected. This is what all the experts at the time had already detected. Electronic voting is not infallible.

Since then, we have tried to improve it in various ways. The last attempt is the one proposed. One of the big criticisms of the electronic system is that the citizen has far fewer possibilities to check what he actually voted for and what he puts into the ballot.

The “ticketing” project has thus been developed and new problems have arisen. Despite the tests carried out and the multiple reports of experts saying that the system worked well, two problems occurred. On the one hand, if the president acted on his computer, he raised some votes. On the other hand, there was the “double click” problem without one realizing it. For this problem, solutions were proposed, but this "double click" had electoral effects, in the sense that people voted for a list and then for a candidate without realizing it, because the candidate was just below the first vote and the screen was too sensitive. However, there were trials and companies were paid a lot to tell us that the system was working perfectly.

On the occasion of the meeting, the Secretary of State for the Modernization of Public Services, Mr. Bogert said he wanted to go back to the paper vote. Unfortunately, it is not so simple to say that we are in favor of modernity and electronic voting. Electronic voting is complex. I see you all working on your computers and gsm every day. These are extraordinary tools, but often present small failures. In this case, the difficulty lies in the fact that citizens are entitled to expect zero mistake! They want their voices to be heard and no problems to arise. However, we cannot guarantee them. In fact, every time there are elections, there are small problems.

Elections after elections, we propose texts to try to improve the system, while knowing that other problems will arise.

When it comes to democratic control, an effort is made in the sense that citizens get a ticket and thus see clearer. There is also the possibility to recalculate tickets. Nevertheless, going through a computer very clearly weakens the citizen’s influence on the fact of putting his vote and on the subsequent deprivation, which is therefore much more centralized in the hands of experts.

The third problem is the cost. Municipalities are facing increasing financial difficulties. They have to deal with important needs, and all these systems are very expensive.

This has also been seen for several days in the trial between the Walloon Region and a whole series of Liege municipalities to which the invoice was sent: electronic voting is expensive and this invoice is distributed among several actors. This is why we are increasingly asking ourselves whether it is not wiser to go back to paper voting, more controlled and less expensive.

Another question that has not been answered in the committee. Normally, the voter makes one vote for the House, one vote for the Region, and one vote for Europe. Here, there will be a small ticket gathering all three votes. It will be possible to say that a person X voted for the candidate X in the House, for another list in Europe or for the candidate Y in the Region. Voting ballots are thus easier to trace as they retrieve all the votes of the voter. This changes a democratic principle. Until now, voters have voted ballot by ballot. There is no link between these different votes. Now, we can no longer guarantee the voter that they will not be able to trace their votes. Is the secrecy of the vote still guaranteed?

Imagine one person paying another for a certain vote to be issued. We can check whether this vote has been issued since we can check whether someone voted for candidate X in the first election, such a candidate in the second election, such another in the third election. If this bulletin does not exist, it is that the person has not kept his promise!

This new system is induced by the machine. This is hardly acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, although technology is ubiquitous around us at the beginning of the 21st century, the system of electronic voting is not democratic as a whole and is the subject of many debates. I do not like this technological intrusion into the electoral system. I prefer the old method, simple and effective, the method of paper voting, the method that respects the citizens.

I know that sometimes stupid arguments are invoked in favor of electronic voting, ecology for example. As if we were going to promote ecology by opting for electronic voting, as if the fact of producing voting machines had no energy cost! This argument, of course, does not hold the way. Whether those who want to save the ecology start by preventing the exploitation of wood from tropical forests or the intensive crops made in Monsanto, that they start by encouraging the development of new clean and sustainable energy sources, that they actually start from the root of the problems. Thankfully, let’s not invoke this for the elections, it’s a bit of a laugh! If you do, start already by removing the electoral bills with which you fill the mailboxes of our fellow citizens with millions of euros. This is a first step for nature.

The ecological argument is often used because there are no other arguments to use. You won’t say that electronic voting is convenient because it makes it possible to feed the election evenings on television. Before, it took time to get rid of it. Today, with a little magic stick, we have the result that just falls for the broadcast of the election evening. As by chance! I think this is a coincidence!

Let us not seek excuses, in a country like Belgium, where all parties have decided to agree to squat the power. The federal and regional elections were held at the same time. We have made sure that it is always so; therefore, we have already determined that the federal government will never fall again. It is practical, it is logical. Under such conditions, with people who have decided to keep power, electronic voting likes you! This allows you to manipulate the outcome of the elections as you like! With electronic voting, no one will be able to verify the results. Everything is in a computer.

The press and television have already taken over this fierce debate around electronic voting and the concerns, questions, risks remain. Nothing has changed, despite the debate.

If the average consumer has great reasons to no longer trust the manufacturers of technological devices, if we take the case of planned obsolescence, why should the citizen, who is the same person, have full confidence in an electronic machine and towards the people designated by our parliaments, thus our leaders, to attend the different stages of control?

Should I recall that a Dutch computer scientist managed to obtain a machine used for electronic voting in France and that he proved in front of the cameras of i>Télé that it was a child’s game to hack the chip installed inside this console?

In addition, many people are fighting against these voting computers. But once again, in your eyes, these people do not exist. They are conspirators, people who do not think properly, who invent stories. We have the habit, we know it: these people are always stigmatized.

While democracy is no longer limited to voting, once every Monday, you who sing to us all day long that the people elect their representatives, which is false – I refer to you in addition to my bill on the citizen draw – you are reducing a little more the only and only characteristic that underlines that we would still be in democracy. You had to do it: you did it!

In a few years, and I’m not joking, given the extreme passivity due to the complicity of the Belgian people’s liar media in relation to the antidemocratic measures you are taking over time, you may propose a bill that allows the citizen to no longer go to vote. Well yes! You know, don’t go vote. Sometimes it is practical.

And television will launch a propaganda campaign to teach the Belgians that since polls are enough to know what their voting intentions are, statistics allow to form a government without going through the path of the polls. But no, it is not necessary, you know. We know what you think and what you vote for.

I joke, I say it with irony, but I know you are capable of reaching such a situation, such a betrayal. Especially the Socialist Party, whose policy is to infantilize citizens: the less I do, the better I do.

Why not make a referendum to know the preferred method of voting of the citizens? The referendum! This is a prohibited term in this area. We cannot ask for the opinion of the public. I had forgotten! I have dreamed! I dream of a better Belgium, of a Belgium where citizens are truly respected.

If the opinion of the population was asked by referendum, I put my hand to cut that it would make known that it has no confidence in this electronic voting system. She is right to no longer trust you.

Of course, you do not give him the right to choose. The same applies to everything else since it is stipulated in Article 3 that it is up to the King, by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, to choose where the electronic vote will be applied and the general conditions of authorization that guarantee the reliability and security of the system as well as the secrecy of the vote. The King, the same King who has been frequenting, for years, this elite and secret group that is the Bilderberg. We should trust him! There is something to laugh! You would like to be trusted! The people and the elite are two spheres with diametrically opposed interests. People need to wake up to understand what is happening to them.

You also say that the maintenance and preservation of the material will be ensured by the municipalities that manage their property as a good family father. If it’s like roads, it promises!

What will the citizen think about the reliability of these machines on election day? Do you honestly think that the citizen still has an ounce of confidence in his government and its methods, in the course of electronic voting? The right of view of the citizen is diminished. It is more confusing. It is less transparent. This plays the game of liars and manipulators politicians. This is of course!

Of course, to calm the minds, you have planned a system where electronic voting is confirmed by printing a paper document. In doing so, the ecological argument falls! Once the citizen has validated his vote on the screen, he will have to fold in two the sheet that will be printed. He will then be invited to go to the urn to vote there. The paper evidence will then be placed in a sealed envelope – we trust you – and kept warm.

Why not allow a paper counting of votes after voting, in parallel with electronic deprivation? This may help ensure the proper functioning of the system. Finally, do we know if this system works? It has never been tested!

Maybe it would be good to do it! Let’s make the two slides for once. Of course, you will tell me that electronic voting just allows you to discharge yourself from this boring task, as if it was serious to ask the citizens, once every four years, to miss a evening or an afternoon to realize the deprivation and feel like real citizens. Because the elections that are visibly dear to you should not be the subject of special and meticulous attention with total transparency to remove any suspicion? A control by citizens is, in my view, the only guarantee of democratic respect. I know the politicians. I have visited them for a long time. How to trust them? How to trust you? I do not trust you.

Article 17 states that it is to the Minister of the Interior or his delegate.

I am not a politician like everyone else. I have nothing to do with you! You are politicians. I am defending the people. I am not involved in any affairs. I have only one mandate, I, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialists. I am not multiplying mandates. I am not here to fill my pockets on the back of the citizens who are dying of hunger. Do not compare me to you. You cannot understand!

Article 17 says...

You don’t even have the intellectual ability to understand me.

Article 17 tells us that it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior or his delegate to develop the electoral software and to publish, within the week following the day of the election, this so-called software on the website of the Ministry of the Interior. Why not publish it a week earlier, so that those who want it can study how it works?

You also talk about a certain college of permanent experts and a college of non-permanent experts. These experts elected for five years are IT specialists and are appointed by the four regional parliaments and by the federal parliament. They are not democratically designated. They are also not thrown to fate. They are not people we can trust. No, are these 14 experts, who must also have legal skills, reliable? I am asking. I have doubts. I can be paranoid, but it seems to me that a lot of strange things are happening somewhat everywhere in our institutions. And I have the right, and even the duty, to ask myself questions about the course of this type of vote. Outside these experts, there is in no way a control by the citizens in the whole process.

Through this system, you have thus managed to take away from the citizen all control over the elections. You steal our freedoms, you shame the democracy.

While no citizen is taken into account in the stages of voting control, the experts have, as mentioned in Article 25, almost all of the tasks consisting in controlling the correct running of the elections. It is very practical! I am convinced that it will take a little time, but the citizen will one day realize that he has been grumbled; once again.

Paragraph 3 of this same article stipulates that "experts are kept secret." Oh the secret! Any violation of this secrecy shall be punished in accordance with Article 458 of the Criminal Code.

You don’t realize that we’ve taken away all of your secrets, all of these lies and these coveted secrets. We want transparency. The Socialists, do you understand? and transparency . Maybe you don’t know the word because you don’t apply it, you haven’t practiced it for years in power. I wonder if it is not when we have something to hide.

I invite fellow citizens to get acquainted with the methodology you advocate by reading this bill organizing electronic voting, with paper proof. If they have the courage to go to the end, given the weight of the jargon used and the recurring mentions to various existing regulations and legal provisions, etc., they will notice that they have no place in the electoral process. Neither concerning the control of the reliability of this system nor concerning the control of the final inspections.

However, manual removal is so simple to implement. As if we did not know how to vote before, as if we needed a machine to vote today. The manual layout was concrete. That is why it is difficult to understand the deep reasons that motivate you to make it evolve this way.

Yes, I understand them after discovering during these four years spent with you the contempt you can have for the people and democracy. I am an accident of democracy, as Mr. said so well. by Flahaut. And I am proud of it, Mr. Thiery. Per ⁇ this is the only intelligent thing Mr. Flahaut said during this legislature. It is heavy of sense.

It is an accident of democracy. Why Why ? Because I do not respect the rules of this rotten and corrupt system. An accident, because I am not melting into a mold. An accident, because I am fighting this pseudo-democracy that you represent and which reduces our fundamental freedoms.

Let an accident be renewed.

The appearance has already been removed. Today we have electronic voting. Thus, we can better decide who will be the elected people who will populate these seats and this Assembly!

If I am still alive until then, would they dare to let me be re-elected when they see the media harshness of which I am a victim. There are, however, many Belgians standing with me – although now they are sitting in the projection hall – who await a real change in this country, Belgians who await other elected, elected who carry a speech of truth, of sincerity, without the taboo you set yourself, to benefit from representatives more just, more listening and showing goodwill.

This fraction of the population deserves to be heard, respected and represented, even though I fear that electronic voting has only the sole purpose of allowing you to manipulate the result of the elections to better guarantee your place in the sun, but above all to preserve this system that you defend because it feeds you but is still breath-out.

I will therefore vote against this bill which takes away the citizen’s basic right to control the elections. I cannot accept to support a system in which the power in place is judge and party. True Democrats – we’ll see how much we’ll be at the vote – can only vote against this intolerable project!