A Hurdle to Acceptance of e-Governance Proposals

While researching an assignment on e-voting, I encountered several blogs that illuminated an issue presented by many e-governance proposals, and that is lack of confidence in governmental institutions in general.


When elections results differ from exit poll data in a statistically significant way, technology is attacked, elections workers are assailed, and conspiracy theories abound. Consequently, a group who feels aggrieved as the result of a lost election engages in an analysis that goes something like this: We (our candidate, initiative, referendum) lost; we weren't supposed to lose (after all, our candidate/idea was the best); technology was used to count the votes, and therefore technology must have been flawed/manipulated; even if the process and technology are investigated, the results are unreliable (unless they favor us) because we cannot trust the investigators; we could investigate the investigators, but that would similarly be unproductive (unless they agreed with us) because they are probably part of the conspiracy. Hence, we should not accept, or even recognize, the outcome. In fact, we should devote all of our time between now and the next election cycle complaining about the result and engaging in venomous, personal attacks, instead of "moving on."


This is true, whether the culprits are Democrats crying "foul" for the 2000 Presidential election, or Republicans making a similar claim regarding Washington's 2004 Gubernatorial race. Such attitudes are attributable, at least in part, to large sections of the population with an utter disrespect, bordering on contempt, of governmental institutions. Unfortunately, these views are not confined to extremists living in isolation in the mountains of Idaho or communally in the mountains of Santa Cruz. Very often, they emanate from our country's elected leadership.

When elected officials pander to the most base instincts of the electorate, they set an example unworthy of emulation. Political discourse has a particularly acrimonious tone at the national level, and when elected leaders at the highest strata see fit to make accusations with rhetoric that exceeds the bounds of civility, we should not be surprised when the citizenry follows suit. After enduring a constant bombardment of accusations against public officials that equate them to criminals, or worse, it is no wonder that large portions of the public display a complete lack of trust regarding modifications proposed by government to modify government.

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and unwarranted paranoia. There is a difference between saying we could do something better, and declaring the entire system and everyone involved in it are corrupt. Undoubtedly, some in power have provided ample justification for cynicism and mistrust. Media are quick to respond to failings by those in government, but rarely do they emphasize the positive contributions of public servants. Many who work in the public sector display a commitment to their duties and a level of expertise that can only be matched, but not surpassed. Their efforts will not be highlighted on a "Sixty Minutes" segment, and their endeavors will likely go unnoticed except for those who work closest to them.


Until a much higher degree of confidence is restored in governmental institutions and those who make them function, novel ideas, such as e-governance, will not be universally and readily accepted, regardless of their merit. This "confidence restoration project" could begin with national figures leading the way, and advanced through a little more media coverage of things that are going well in this country. After all, people are not packing themselves in cargo containers, or braving rough waters in leaky boats, to enter other countries; they are coming to the United States for a reason. Surely, our nation must be doing something right.