Countries that allow online voting: map, models and debates

Electronic voting was born to facilitate participation and open new avenues for those who cannot travel to a polling station. To date, many jurisdictions have tested digital solutions as an alternative to mail-in and in-person voting, but only one Minority allows voting by internet broadly and stably.

Beyond the generic label, the term “electronic voting” encompasses very different technologies and rules. Some countries focus on machines in polling places (without network connection) and others rehearse remote i-voting online. The usual motivation is to offer “all possibilities” for exercising the right to vote, but concerns persist about security, verifiability, secrecy and trust in the results.

What do we understand by electronic voting and its variants?

Electronic voting is often discussed as a whole, although there are areas and requirements different. In the public sphere, electronic “electoral” voting operates on the principle of one person, one votewith guaranteed anonymity, controls to prevent double voting, and seat allocation by rules such as the d'Hondt method. In parallel, in the private and associative sphere, "corporate" electronic voting is emerging, where rights can to considerThe vote may not be anonymous (except for statutory exceptions) and it is possible change direction of the vote within the deadline.

From a technical-procedural point of view, two main families are distinguished with different challenges:

• Supervised in-person electronic votingBallot boxes/machines in official centers; includes DRE (direct on-screen registration) and systems with optical scanning of paper ballots.
• Remote voting via the Internet (i-voting)The voter submits their vote from any location; this is useful for people with reduced mobility, residents in remote areas or expatriates.

Beyond the electoral sphere, electronic corporate voting covers modalities such as early voting and in real time on the agenda, the delegation with instructions and the election of governing bodies both in advance and live.

Key advantages and risks of internet voting and other electronic voting systems

Proponents point to clear benefits. It would allow vote from anywhere With internet access, it reduces invalid votes, speeds up the count, and, according to various experts, benefits people with disability or mobility difficultiesCompared to other methods, some studies argue that the online channel can be cost-efficient per voteThey also point out that even mail-in voting involves risks and has been used for decades.

The concerns are significant. Researchers from the European Parliament have warned about the attack surface (fraud, hackers) and the need for extreme controls over keys, audits, connectivity, and providers. Remote voting increases the exposure to coercion or purchase of votes, and without an individualized physical document, it can be lost auditability if the system does not include independent verifiability. Problems of usability that affect those with less digital experience the most.

In i-voting, identification can be based on Electronic ID card or SIM...as in mobile experiences where identification is activated on official websites. In any case, the underlying discussion is not only technical: the acceptance of online voting hinges on the citizen trustwhich often depends less on technology and more on perceptions of governments and electoral authorities.

Where can you vote online and which countries use electronic voting technologies

Below is a detailed overview—by region—of countries with broad implementationtests or studies, and those that prohibited or suspended These solutions include both internet voting initiatives and voting machines and scanning at polling stations, as well as legal developments and key milestones. dates, percentages and particularities.

Europe: pioneers, advances and setbacks

In Europe, disparate models coexist. It stands out Estonia as a global leader in online voting, while countries like Belgium They maintain electronic voting machines with paper verification and others, such as SwitzerlandThey alternate between progress and pauses for security reasons. At the opposite extreme are Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands. they stopped Its deployment raises concerns about integrity and oversight.

Implementation or consolidated use

• BelgiumA pioneer since 1989 with magnetic stripe cards and electronic voting machines. Since 2010, it has upgraded its systems towards touchscreens with printed receipt for auditing. In 2014 a fully automated and verifiable system was used; a specific failure forced its cancellation 2.200 votes (0,06%)It is not used in Wallonia, while the German-speaking community has used it in municipal elections since 2015. In 2019, the machines issued a encrypted ballot verifiable before depositing it in the ballot box.
• Estonia: first country with nationwide Internet voting in 2005 (local elections; 9.317 online votes). In 2007, the 3,13% of the electorate used i-voting in the general elections; in 2008 they enabled mobile voting Following legal reform; in 2009, 104.415 They used i-voting for the European Parliament (9,5%). In 2011, 140.846 Electronic voting (96% from within the country); in 2013 it was opened source codeIn 2014, 31% of the i-voted electorate voted in the European elections; in 2015 they reached 176.491 i-votes (30,5%); in local elections in 2017, 31,7% (186.034) i-voted with expansion to 16-17 years (7,4% of i-votes); in 2019, 44% (247.232) used the electronic channel with the possibility of vote again and to annul with a ballot box vote; in 2023 they reached 51,3% i-voto (313.514), allowing online voting up until election day itself. All of this is supported by Electronic ID and PINwith encrypted prism to preserve anonymity and constant improvements in security, auditability and transparency.
• GeorgiaIn the legislative elections of October 26, 2024, technology was applied to registration, voting, counting, and transmission. 2.263 de 3.031 At the polling stations, a system was used in which the voter marked the ballot with a marker, the machine read the ballot, and it was deposited in a ballot box; there were fraud complaints.

Under study or partial implementation

• France: after pilots (2000-2002) and use in the 2005 referendum, in 2007 1,5 million They were able to vote electronically in person. In 2012, expatriates voted online for the National Assembly (127.000 i-votes). In 2017 the Government discarded Legislative e-voting for residents abroad due to cybersecurity risks. In 2020, the platform for consular elections was approved (implemented in 2021) with tests and verificationsIn 2022 there were problems with validation codes that did not reach part of the overseas electorate.
• ItalyThe 2017 referendum in Lombardy and Veneto, using voting tablets, was slow and costly, sparking controversy. criticismIn 2019, a budget was reserved for experiments aimed at Italians abroad and voters outside their residence for work/study/health.
• Russia: stores 2011 with touch screen and cards; 2018 installed 12.000 scanner ballot boxes in 10.000 schools (35 million enabled), many with QR in protocols. In 2021, remote electronic voting was used in seven regions (including Moscow); there were complaints domestic/international. Subsequent announcements point to expansion to some 30 regions a new digital method of scrutiny.
• SwitzerlandPilot programs were conducted in 2003–2005 (Geneva, Neuchâtel, Zurich) and in 2008 with residents abroad. Geneva incorporated e-voting into its Constitution in 2009. Zurich suspended trials in 2011 for technical and cost reasons. In 2015, following an audit that detected secrecy issues, it was disavowed the online channel in 9 cantons, remaining 13.000 i-votes from 142.000 expatriates. In 2018, the aim was to make it a regular channel with code releaseZug tested blockchain in a municipal election (30% of 240 voters). In 2019, the Swiss Post system was suspended due to critical errors Geneva abandoned its own due to costs, resulting in a drop in foreign participation. In 2023, the government gave the green light to new tests with a “revised” Swiss Post system with universal verifiability.

Prohibited or halted

• GermanIt used electronic voting in 2005; in 2009 the Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional for preventing citizens without technical knowledge from monitoring the process.
• Netherlands: enabled electronic voting in 1965; after revealing security flaws in 2006, it was reinstated in 2008 role in In 2017, the digital counting method was abandoned due to vulnerabilities, and results communication was implemented. phone.
• IrelandAfter trials in 2002 and a safety review, the government suspended its introduction in 2009; in 2012 it got rid of 7.500 machines for lack of reliability.
• Norwayi-voting pilot programs in 2011 (ten municipalities) and 2013; in 2014 the government announced finished The trials were criticized for political controversy and lack of impact on participation.
• Finland: trial in 2008 cancelled due to usability problems; in 2016-2017 a working group recommended do not use i-voting in general due to a lack of guarantees of verifiability and secrecy.
• United Kingdom: more than 30 pilots (2002-2007); in 2008 the Electoral Commission judged insufficient the guarantees and closed the door to continuing.

America: From Mass Automation to Pilots with Limited Range

The American mosaic ranges from the full automation in some processes even specific pilot programs, with a recent trend towards strengthening verifiable ballots and audits.

Implementation or consolidated use

• BrazilSince 1996 it has implemented electronic voting machines; in 2002, 100% of in-person voting was electronicIt introduced biometrics in 2008 (four million in 2010; 23 million in 2014). In 2016 there were 43,3 million of biometric verifications (32,13%) in 1.541 municipalities. In 2018 the Supreme Court eliminated Printed ballots are being rejected due to concerns about secrecy, in contrast to citizen requests for paper-based traceability.
• Venezuela: from optical scanning (1998-2003) it went in 2004 to direct record with printed receipt; in 2012, the entire cycle was automated (biometric authentication, ballot box activation, counting, and totaling). There were audits following complaints in 2013 and international requests for review in 2017.
• ParaguayThe first electronic voting machines were used in 2003-2006; paper ballots were reinstated in 2008 due to a lack of consensus. Machines were used in the 2021 municipal elections and the 2023 general elections; the following were reported: difficulties for older people and accusations of "assisted voting", along with positive ratings in local polls.
• EE. UUEnormous diversity due to state and county jurisdiction. History of lever machines (1892-1960) and, since 1980, five major systems: lever, punched cards, ballots with/without optical scanning and DRE. Following Florida 2000 and the HAVA law (2002), the country migrates to paper trademarks with scanning and reduces Paperless DREIn 2008, some counties tested electronic voting for overseas military personnel; in 2012, 56% voted by paper ballot (with or without a scanner) and 39% by DRE; there were technical issues in several states in 2016 and 2018. West Virginia tested an app in 2018 with blockchain for expatriates and people with disabilities, but in 2020 it discarded it due to concerns about privacy and integrityUtah has proposed trials of online voting.

Under study or partial implementation

• ArgentinaEight provinces have legislated diverse electronic experiences since 2003, including Electronic Single Ballot (BUE) in Salta (2011, then 100% of polling stations in 2013). Problems with machines, replacements, and legibility in 2015. In 2016, the national BUE law did not prosper in the Senate. In 2017, CONICET recommended against moving forward in the short/medium term. Following incidents in 2023, Buenos Aires discarded the system for the general.
• Canada: the federal level maintains role in There is municipal electronic voting (Markham, Ontario since 2003; Ottawa with optical scanning). Quebec temporarily suspended it after problems in 2005. Six provinces allow electronic mechanisms, but in 2017 the federal government did not consider i-voting viable, and in 2020 Elections Canada reiterated that it did not plan to introduce it due to a lack of time to guarantee its reliability. confidentiality, secrecy and integrity.
• ColombiaPilots in 2007; in 2009, a party consultation with a touchscreen; in 2011, it was implemented biometrics to 10% of the census.
• EcuadorIn 2004, Brazilian ballot boxes with legal validity were used. In 2013, three technologies (printed receipt, chip, and direct registration) were tested in three provinces. In 2014, electronic voting was implemented. binding in Santo Domingo and Azuay. In 2023, the overseas i-voting for the CPCCS and referendum registered 19.000 votes from 97.000 eligible voters; in August, the CNE annulled overseas voting due to system failures.
• El Salvador StreetThe Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) implemented electronic voting for Salvadorans abroad in the 2024 presidential and legislative elections.
• GuatemalaIn 2002, it used a numeric keypad/screen in municipal elections. In 2019, i-voting was announced for US residents, but the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal) will not implement it by 2023. dismissed both in the country and abroad.
• MexicoTests in Coahuila (2005) and ballot boxes in 2008; experiences in Mexico City (2003, 2006, 2009) and Jalisco (2009, 2012). The IFE implemented i-voting for overseas voters in 2012 with low profitabilityIn 2017, the INE (National Electoral Institute) ruled out i-voting for 2018 due to budget/certainty concerns. In 2021-2022, i-voting was enabled for local polling stations; in 2021, Coahuila and Jalisco used it. electronic ballot boxes (50 per state). In 2023, the INE offered SIVEI for the registered diaspora.
• Panama2014 pilot with 4.859 voters; 2015 trial at the Bar Association (1.900 out of 3.000). Electronic voting was planned for 2024 at 20 polling stations (up to 10.000 people).
• PeruThe 2005 law authorized progressive deployment. Binding experience in Pacarán in 2011; municipal/regional initiatives in seven districts in 2014; and the VEP reached [a specific level of implementation/competitive ... 743.169 voters (3%). ONPE developed its own solution; there was progress with results in 30 minutes in pilot programs and expansion to 39 districts in 2018.

Asia and Oceania: from mass use in India to pilot projects with blockchain

The case of India is the largest global deployment of direct recording machines without an internet connection, while other countries have explored blockchain or withdrawn systems due to cost and limited utility.

• India: gradual start in 1989; since 2003, 100% of the vote is electronic at headquarters. In 2004, one million machines were used with more than 670 million voters in three weeks; in 2006, more were incorporated. brailleIn 2010, experts called for greater security, verifiability, and transparency; since 2014, VVPAT (paper trail) has been incorporated, and by 2019 the Commission sought to cover the 100% of the machines with proof of purchase.
• Philippinesi-voting for expatriates in 2007; pilot program in 2008 to choose technology in 2010; legislative elections with electronic voting in 2010 and review after incidents; 2013 was repeated without problems; in 2016, 92.509 machines for 55,7 million voters with printed validation slips; in 2022, the fifth consecutive election with electronic voting machines (some 53 million).
• United Arab Emirates: first experience in 2006; in 2011 it expanded to electronic machineswith a strong push towards m-Government. In 2015 the process was entirely electronic with 224.000 enabled and 35% participation, results in some 30 minutes and a greater female presence (38,94%).
• JapanA 2002 law enabled local electronic voting; Niimi debuted it that year. In 2018, Aomori retirement their cost-based system; Tsukuba tested blockchain in a consultation with 119 participants.
• MongoliaIn 2012, it used an electronic system for parliamentary elections to combat fraud, but reported technical incidents.
• IraqThe 2017 Kurdish referendum allowed electronic voting by the diaspora; in 2018 it was used biometrics and machines, with 1.021 ballot boxes being annulled due to fraud.
• AustraliaLegislation since 2000. ACT employed EVACS in 2001 and 2004; Victoria added positions for visual disability in 2006 and 2010. New South Wales launched iVote in 2011 (47.000), expanding to 286.000 in 2015 and repeating until 2019, when 63% of those who did not vote in person did so via the Internet and the app verifier It gained use. In 2021, there were disruptions that prevented thousands from voting; courts ordered repeat three local elections.

Africa: first steps and challenges

Namibia It was the first African country to use electronic voting in presidential elections (2014) with touch-screen machines imported from India, but received complaints due to the absence of paper proof, errors, and lack of training.

Spain and the European context

In Spain, internet voting is not used in legislative elections. The so-called requested vote (2011) required residents abroad to request to vote, and participation fell from 31,7% al 4,9%Pilots have been carried out: in 2004 a remote test on three tables; in 2005 a non-binding trial in one municipality per province during the referendum on the European Constitution; in 2008-2011 the Electronically Managed Table to automate desk tasks. At the regional level, the Basque Country regulated and developed this in 1998. Demotek (used at the UPV and Athletic Club, and in a test in Catalonia). In Barcelona, ​​a 2010 online and mobile survey had incidencesCatalonia launched a preliminary project in 2018 for electronic voting for residents abroad, with the intention of extending it gradually.

At EU level, hundreds of millions of citizens vote in European elections 27 sets Different. Spain elects 61 MEPs and, as of today, does not allow online voting. Estonia does integrate the digital channel into all its elections—local, national, and European—and for the first time... Digital voting surpassed paper voting in their most recent generals.

Is online voting safe? What practice and experts say

Estonia continuously invests in its ecosystem: audits, updates softwareIt reviews algorithms and analyzes vulnerabilities. It claims to have detected none. malware in elections and maintains the verifiability of its channel. Switzerland, on the other hand, halted the expansion of i-voting in 2019 after public evidence found failures in the universal verifiability of the Swiss Post system; in 2023 it restarted pilots after a thorough review and code publication.

Trust is once again at the forefront. Experts remind us that citizens don't just evaluate the technologybut rather to the institutions that manage it. In countries with a questionable democratic history, the adoption of e-voting has generated more debate: while Russia expands its electronic system in several regions, international observers have pointed out unequal conditions of the competitors – Benchmark.

In the United States, the punch card crisis in Florida in 2000 spurred modernization (HAVA, 2002). The use of traceless DRE on paper was considered There unsafeAnd today, hand-marked ballots with optical scanning predominate. The recent global trend favors ballot on paper verifiable by the votereven when electronic equipment is used to speed up the counting.

Who actually uses internet voting and who avoids it

If we look at the developed world, among the 20 leading countries of Score for Human Development Index Only the United States partially employs forms of electronic voting (and not uniformly or necessarily online). At the national level, countries such as Belgium, Brazil, Estonia, the Philippines, India, and Venezuela They have integrated electronic voting with varying degrees and technologies. Others, such as Canada y SwitzerlandThey limit it to subnational levels or to the diaspora and subject it to windows of testing and auditing.

On the prudent or critical side, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom they opted for prohibit or discard These methods were implemented after failures or due to the impossibility of guaranteeing public transparency without technical expertise. Their courts and authorities prioritized the citizen control simple and robust.