Online voting, between public appetite and technological reality: is Romania ready?

On May 18, Romania is preparing for a second round of elections held in the classic format - with paper ballots, physical polling stations and queues at the ballot boxes - even though, in the first round, nearly 10 million Romanians did not turn out to vote, and for many of them the lack of an online voting option was a discouraging factor. In an age when most of our interactions are digital, the question comes naturally: why can't we vote online?

The public's desire, especially among the diaspora and young people, for an online voting system (also called remote electronic voting) is real. The images of thousands of Romanian citizens standing in line for hours in London, Paris or Munich, unable to vote in the 2014 presidential elections, shocked public opinion. For many, that frustration of the diaspora sparked the discussion about a modern solution: online voting. On the other hand, when we move from desire to reality, a series of natural questions arise: is the technology secure enough? Can we trust that online voting will be accurate and secret? How does Romania stand when it comes to digital infrastructure?

A recent survey conducted by AtlasIntel, in partnership with Metaminds, shows that 7 out of 10 Romanians would vote online if they had this option. The public appetite exists, but behind a seemingly simple click lies a complex network of technologies, standards and risks. Electronic voting is not an app, but an infrastructure of trust. Despite the complexity of implementation, more and more voices argue that online voting is a natural and necessary direction for the future of Romanian democracy. Let us examine in turn the advantages that electronic voting would bring, the challenges and risks involved, the lessons offered by the experience of other countries, and how prepared Romania is from the perspective of public trust and implementation capacity.

What would implementing online voting in Romania mean?

To understand what this step entails, we spoke with one of Metaminds' experts - a Romanian company specialized in digital infrastructure, security and critical architectures.

"Implementing online voting in Romania does not mean just an app or a platform. It means building a complete digital ecosystem, where every citizen's identity is cryptographically verified, data is protected end-to-end, and the entire process is audited in real time. It requires interoperability between the state's registries, advanced security standards and, perhaps most importantly, public trust. Technically, it is possible. But it must be conceived as national infrastructure, not as a point solution."

• Marius Marinescu, Chief Technology Officer, Metaminds

Trust - the currency of digital voting

Technology can provide security, but citizens' trust must be earned, not merely assumed. The lack of transparency, the fragmentation of systems and bureaucracy represent current challenges, reflected also in the Metaminds survey: over 69% of Romanians identify bureaucracy as the main obstacle to the digitalization of public services.

The advantages of online voting

Supporters of online voting highlight numerous clear benefits for the democratic process. Increased accessibility is probably the most frequently cited advantage. An online voting system would allow citizens to cast their choice wherever they are, without having to travel to a polling station. Romanians in the diaspora would be the main beneficiaries - they would no longer have to travel hundreds of kilometers to the nearest embassy or stand in endless queues to vote. France offers a revealing example: in 2012, when it introduced online voting for its citizens living abroad, over 60% of them chose the electronic option to cast their vote. This indicates an enormous appetite among the diaspora for such a facility. For Romanians everywhere - whether they work abroad or live in isolated areas - online voting would remove geographical obstacles and bring them virtually 'closer' to the ballot box.

Another benefit is increased voter turnout, especially among those for whom the traditional method is inconvenient. An online platform could draw to the polls young people familiar with technology and busy people who currently abstain due to a lack of time or the distance to polling stations. Even though international studies show that the effect on overall turnout may vary (Norway, for example, did not observe a significant jump in turnout following online voting pilot projects), for certain categories the difference would be major. The diaspora and voters with reduced mobility (housebound elderly people, people with disabilities) would finally have equal chances to vote compared with those in the country. It is, ultimately, a matter of inclusion: electronic voting would give every citizen the possibility to exercise their democratic right without logistical obstacles.

Likewise, the administrative efficiency of the electoral process would increase considerably. Votes transmitted electronically can be counted automatically, by the system, immediately after the close of the ballot, eliminating the need for manual centralization of the ballots and reducing the possibility of counting errors. Think of the thousands of tally sheets filled in by hand and the potential transcription or calculation mistakes - all of these would disappear or be drastically reduced. The results could be known within a few minutes of the polls closing, rather than after hours or even days of counting. In addition, many costs would be reduced: less paper, simplified logistics (fewer polling-station members, fewer stamps and ballot boxes to distribute). Estonia's experience suggests that online voting can also be economically advantageous - according to some analyses, the per-voter cost of online voting in Estonia is almost ten times lower than that of traditional voting. Of course, electronic voting would not immediately replace classic voting, but offering it as an alternative option would significantly streamline the process by reducing crowding at polling stations and the workload of electoral staff.

Last but not least, online voting could bring a breath of modernization to public life. It would show that state institutions keep pace with technology and facilitate the citizen's interaction with the state. For a generation used to handling many tasks with a single click, democracy a click away seems a natural evolution. This could invigorate democracy, making it more accessible and closer to people - an important ideal at a time when we unfortunately also see tendencies of civic apathy or distrust in institutions.

Risks and challenges: why does the world hesitate?

Obviously, if online voting had been free of problems, it would already have been adopted everywhere. Despite its attractiveness, online voting also brings serious risks, which experts and electoral authorities weigh carefully. The main question mark hovers over cybersecurity. Nor can we ignore the problem of unequal access to technology. In Romania - as in any other country - not all citizens have internet access or solid digital skills. If online voting were introduced tomorrow, there is a risk of disadvantaging precisely the categories already civically vulnerable: elderly people, people in rural areas without stable internet connections, citizens with a low level of digital education. They might feel intimidated or excluded by the new system. Of course, the balanced solution would be for electronic voting to be optional, always keeping the classic option as well. But if, over time, online voting were to become predominant, digital inclusion measures must be taken into account.

It is important to emphasize that the risks are not negligible, but neither are they uncontrollable. Most of them can be addressed through technical and organizational measures: advanced encryption, periodic independent audits, vote verification protocols, digital education programs for the public, maintaining voting alternatives, and so on. The real challenge is finding the balance between facilitating voting and protecting its integrity.

What can we learn from the experience of other countries?

Romania is not the only country asking itself this question. Globally, few countries have implemented online voting in national elections, but numerous states have run pilot projects in this direction, and some countries have already turned online voting into a reality.

Estonia, a world leader in e-voting, introduced online voting in 2005, and since 2007 has also used it in parliamentary elections, being the first in the world to take this step. The Estonian system evolved gradually, and its popularity grew continuously: in the 2021 parliamentary elections, approximately 47% of Estonians voted online, and in 2023, with the parliamentary elections, a historic moment was reached - over half of the votes were cast online, with electronic voting surpassing paper voting for the first time. Estonia shows us that it is possible for a society to fully embrace this technology, provided that the right infrastructure and public trust exist. The key to Estonian success was combining online voting with a robust system of electronic identification of citizens (all of them hold a digital ID) and with the unique possibility of changing one's vote - if a voter votes online and then changes their mind, they can vote again online or go physically to the polls, the last option expressed canceling the previous one. This ingenious mechanism eliminates the fear that 'once you have voted online, the vote can no longer be changed,' providing a safety net. Estonia has thus demonstrated that, in a favorable environment, online voting can function under satisfactory security conditions and can become part of normal life.

Norway - in certain local referendums, as was the case in Finnmark (2018), participation through online voting reached 85.5%. Nevertheless, the authorities commissioned studies to gauge public opinion, and the results were reserved: an important part of the population was worried about the secrecy and safety of the vote (fearing that online voting would not remain 100% confidential). Online voting pilot projects were carried out between 2011 and 2013 in several municipalities, but in the absence of strong political support and seeing the public's reluctance, the Norwegian government decided in 2014 to halt the expansion of the online voting project. Norway returned to traditional methods but remained attentive to developments in the field, a sign that it does not rule out reviving the idea if, in the future, the context changes (technology becomes safer, and the public more trusting).

Switzerland introduced online voting gradually, focusing on the diaspora - it approached online voting with prudence and a scientific method. Being a democracy with many referendums, Switzerland wanted to involve its diaspora citizens and began e-voting tests as early as the 2000s, in a few regions: Geneva, Zurich, Neuchatel. Gradually, the pilot projects expanded, reaching the point where, in certain local or federal ballots, up to 50% of Swiss citizens abroad could vote online. Unlike Estonia, Switzerland did not roll out a national system from the start, but allowed each region to choose its technical solution, on condition that it meet strict requirements, such as individual and public verification of votes. There were two main systems (developed in Geneva and by the Swiss Post), both subjected to audits and public tests. Today, Switzerland remains committed to the path of online voting, but maintains a conservative approach: no expansion is made without security being considered satisfactory and without rigorous certification of the systems. The Swiss lesson underlines the importance of testing and correcting errors before large-scale implementations, as well as the need to communicate openly with the public in order to maintain trust. Even though it took a step back in 2019, Switzerland has not abandoned the idea - a sign that it still sees online voting as an innovation of the future, but wants to 'do things by the book.'

France adopted an intermediate position, one of controlled compromise. Like Romania, France has a large diaspora, for which it introduced online voting in the elections dedicated to it. As early as 2003, French citizens settled in the USA were able to vote electronically within the Assembly of French Citizens Abroad. The success encouraged the extension to legislative elections for the diaspora and to consular ones. In 2012, in the first legislative elections in the diaspora, online voting was a real logistical success, with thousands of citizens voting remotely. However, in 2017, right before the elections, the government in Paris decided to suspend online voting for the diaspora, citing fears of cybersecurity and the risk of external attacks. The decision was a preventive one, but subsequently, after improving the systems, France resumed online voting for citizens abroad in the following parliamentary elections, choosing not to use it for presidential elections or referendums, on the grounds that the stakes of those major elections are too high in relation to the risks. In practice, the French model is: we offer the diaspora the convenient option but keep a degree of conservatism for elections of national importance, where we prefer traditional methods. This approach shows that nuanced decisions can be made: it is not mandatory to take an all-or-nothing approach - a country can implement online voting where the benefits are certain (diaspora voting, for example), postponing it where the risks seem to weigh more heavily.

Public trust and local barriers in Romania

In Romania, online voting is not yet available for any category of public elections (neither local, nor parliamentary, nor presidential). So far, Romanians can vote either in the traditional way (presenting themselves physically at the polling station and using the paper ballot) or - to a certain extent - by mail. Postal voting, although also a form of remote voting, was introduced only recently (in 2016 for parliamentary elections, extended in 2019 for presidential ones) and represented a step forward for the diaspora, but it has its limits: it requires prior registration, sending the envelope by post, waiting times and, sometimes, logistical problems. Electronic voting would simplify these things infinitely, but its implementation has so far remained only at the stage of discussion and proposals.

The subject has nonetheless been raised repeatedly over the past decade, especially against the backdrop of scandals related to diaspora voting and concerns about low turnout in the country. 2014 was a turning point - after that chaos at the polling stations abroad, public pressure increased. In 2015, postal voting was adopted, but not online voting. Beyond political will, Romania also has other bureaucratic and technical barriers to overcome in order to be able to implement online voting. A first aspect is the digital identification infrastructure for citizens. Estonia was able to launch e-voting only after the entire population had received electronic identity cards with a chip and digital certificates. In Romania, such a system is only just taking shape - the first electronic identity cards were issued only in 2021, and their adoption is voluntary and quite slow. We do not yet have a large-scale equivalent of the 'digital ID' that would allow secure authentication of voters from a distance. Without a robust authentication mechanism (digital certificate or biometric identification), any online voting platform would be vulnerable to multiple voting or impersonation. Of course, there are alternatives (for example, combining codes sent to the address on the ID card with video verifications), but the efficient solution is a national electronic ID. Therefore, one of the natural preliminary steps would be accelerating the electronic identity card project - which depends on our authorities and their administrative capacity.

Another obstacle relates to the available IT infrastructure and technical expertise. On this front, we stand better: Romania has very well-trained IT specialists, recognized internationally. Our country could, technically speaking, build or adapt an e-voting platform without major problems, possibly even taking over open-source components already used in other states. So the technical readiness exists to a certain extent. The problem relates more to procedures and certifications: any voting system must be rigorously tested and certified before use. This means time and money invested, clear protocols, possibly collaboration with international experts for auditing.

By far, however, the most important factor for the success of any voting system - whether traditional or electronic - is public trust. And here, the challenge in Romania is significant. Surveys and past experiences show that there is a degree of distrust in electoral processes, fueled by our history (accusations of fraud in classic voting, stories about 'electoral tourism,' suspicions of multiple voting, tense parallel counts, and so on). Even though the traditional system has improved considerably and is well established (with video cameras in polling stations, with observers and strict procedures), the perception of many people remains that elections can be rigged. In this context, it is not surprising that the idea of online voting makes many people skeptical - if we do not have full trust even in the physical ballot, how would we have it in something 'invisible' on the internet? This perception must be addressed with very great seriousness. Obtaining public trust is perhaps the most difficult stage, more difficult than the technical implementation of the system. People must be convinced that their vote remains secret, that no one can alter it, and that the system will not crash on the very day of the elections. How is this trust won? Through transparency and communication. The authorities should explain clearly how the platform works, what security measures it has, acknowledge the risks and show that they are prepared to face them. Only in this way can the population's genuine buy-in to a new system be won. Estonia, for example, educated its voters over the years, organizing information campaigns and even public hacking contests (to demonstrate the safety of the system). Romania should do the same: bring technology closer to the public, show that online voting is not someone's secret trick, but a process just as auditable (even if different in form).

Also falling under the heading of trust is the need for local pilot programs; before any national implementation, gradual introduction is recommended: first a pilot in a controlled environment (for example, for the diaspora in one ballot), then gradual expansion. These tests would allow problems to be identified and, very importantly, would give the public the chance to see the system at work. A possible scenario for Romania would be: choosing a city or county for a pilot project at the next local elections, where willing citizens could vote online (in parallel with the classic system available to everyone), or implementing online voting for Romanians abroad at the next parliamentary elections, as an alternative to postal voting. The diaspora is the public most eager for this option and, at the same time, probably the most digitally prepared. Such a test in the diaspora would carry much lower risks to the overall result (the number of votes from abroad usually being under 10% of the total), but would provide valuable lessons and would demonstrate that Romania can safely organize an online ballot. Bureaucratic barriers - such as amending electoral legislation, allocating funds, sharing responsibilities among institutions - must also be overcome through collaboration and planning. It is necessary for all political parties to agree on the direction and to respect the democratic principles relating to security, anonymity, equal access and transparency.

In conclusion, a necessary step but with our eyes open.

The overall picture of online voting is, therefore, complex. There are real risks, and it is healthy to be aware of them. But there are also undeniable benefits, which in certain situations can weigh very heavily - especially for Romania, with its huge diaspora and with young generations increasingly disengaged from traditional methods. Even though it may seem paradoxical, the greatest long-term threat to democracy could in fact be stagnation and failure to adapt. Society is evolving rapidly, citizens want digital public services, and democracy must keep pace. Online voting is not a whim, but a potential solution to concrete problems: it would eliminate the geographical discrimination of voters, would streamline electoral processes and could motivate more people to take part in the voting process.

Of course, in order to reap these fruits, we must plant the seeds carefully. Romania must not skip stages - fortunately, it is no longer a pioneer forced to leap into the unknown. Other countries such as Norway, Estonia and Switzerland tested before us, made mistakes and corrected them. We can adopt the best practices: start cautiously, test rigorously, involve independent experts and be transparent. What matters is not to abandon the direction. The fact that certain countries had hesitations does not mean that online voting must be rejected, but that it must be improved. Technology is continuously perfected - yesterday's vulnerabilities can be solved tomorrow. And public trust can be built with patience, as shown by the very examples of vaccination programs or other national projects where, starting from initial skepticism, broad acceptance was reached once people saw the results.

Looking to the future, it seems a matter of time until online voting becomes something ordinary in Romania too. The question is no longer whether we will vote online, but when. And when that moment comes, it must find us prepared - with updated laws, with solid digital infrastructure, with informed citizens and with strong security mechanisms. Online voting is a natural and necessary direction in an increasingly digitalized world. The challenges that accompany it should not frighten us, but motivate us to find better solutions. Ultimately, democracy means evolution and adaptation. Romania can and must take this step, with its eyes open, transforming public desire into technological reality.