Absentee voting not secure
Yesterday, a letter to the editor written by a Mr David Pendery was published in the Taipei Times, arguing about the benefits of absentee voting, no matter in which country a Taiwanese citizen and prospective voter might reside.
In his letter Pendery states that “There is no reason that all of these votes from citizens of Taiwan, wherever they live, would not be ‘certifiable and trustworthy,’” even if they would reside in China.
Pendery does not provide any supporting facts or arguments for why absentee votes cast in China would be “certifiable and trustworthy.” It would be most welcome if Mr Pendery would provide such insights to inform the rest of us.
Methods to cast ballots in elections in a country other than the nation in question include voting in person at an embassy or a consulate, sending a letter, using fax, e-mail or by accessing a Web site portal for some US states and express courier service.
Taiwan does not have any consular services or embassies in China. Letters, faxes and express courier services are subject to screening, and the Internet in China is monitored by design.
To be eligible to vote, registration is required and this registration is undertaken in the foreign country of residence. This is also done by the same or similar means used to cast a ballot.
None of these methods are tamper-proof.
Since it is very much in China’s interest to interfere in Taiwan’s elections, does anyone believe that the Chinese Communist Party would abstain from this opportunity to influence the outcome of an election in Taiwan?
It is in the interest of democracy to encourage and make it easier for all citizens to exercise their right to vote. In some democratic countries it is not only a right, but also an obligation. When it comes to digital voting, most countries agree that although it presents certain advantages by making it easier to vote, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Due to the inherent risk that comes with any Internet-connected device, a ballot cast using this method cannot be considered “certifiable and trustworthy.” When it comes to absentee voting in China, no vote could be considered as such.
If Mr Pendery could argue otherwise, he would be most welcome to present this information in this paper.
The subject and the discussion are valid and necessary, to assess whether absentee ballots could be accepted from China or not. My opinion is that they cannot because they cannot be validated beyond doubt.
The facts regarding absentee voting methods, combined with China’s election interference interest and the inherent risk of tampering, deliberately built into China’s surveillance system, support this understanding.
The most important principle for exercising democracy is being able to cast one’s vote without undue influence and according to one’s own will. There are no such possibilities in China.
Jan Nilsson
Singapore
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS