In the United States, elections are often described as the gold standard of democracy, but a closer look reveals troubling patterns of voter suppression and inequality. New technologies like blockchain voting are being promoted as solutions that will make elections more secure and transparent. However, these high-tech systems may actually make things worse, especially for the very people who are already most at risk of being left out of the democratic process.
Traditional voter suppression tactics, such as strict voter ID laws, closing polling places, and purging voter rolls, have long made it harder for Black, Latino, and low-income Americans to vote. Blockchain voting, which requires reliable internet access and often a smartphone, risks excluding millions of people who don’t have these resources. In fact, more than 20 million Americans lack broadband internet, and these gaps are especially wide in rural areas and among the elderly and poor. Even the advanced security features of blockchain voting, like facial recognition, are not immune to bias; studies have shown that these systems are much more likely to make errors when identifying people with darker skin. This means that the very technology meant to protect the vote could end up blocking people from casting a ballot.
Supporters of blockchain voting claim it will make elections tamper-proof, but experts warn that this is mostly an illusion. While blockchain can secure a vote after it’s been cast, it does nothing to stop hackers or malware from changing or discarding a vote before it even reaches the blockchain. In a 2018 pilot project in West Virginia, for example, military voters used a blockchain-based app to vote, but there was no way for them to verify that their digital ballots matched the printed versions used for official counting. Privacy is also a concern. The transparency of blockchain means that, in some cases, it’s possible for authorities or hackers to figure out how someone voted by looking at metadata or by exploiting weaknesses in the encryption. Some systems even give voters a digital receipt to prove their vote was counted, but this can be used by others to pressure or bribe voters into voting a certain way.
Another problem is that private companies are often in charge of these new voting systems. This shifts control of elections away from public officials and into the hands of tech firms, which may not be accountable to voters. For example, companies like Voatz and Smartmatic are responsible for running blockchain voting platforms in some places, raising questions about transparency and oversight.
Real-world examples show that blockchain voting doesn’t always live up to its promises. In Georgia, officials used the Bitcoin blockchain to timestamp election results, but this only protected the results after the votes were counted, not during the voting itself. In Arizona, thousands of mail-in ballots from Black and Native American voters were rejected in the 2020 election, a problem that blockchain voting does nothing to address.
Ultimately, focusing on high-tech solutions like blockchain can distract from the real issues that need fixing, such as making it easier to register and vote, ensuring polling places are accessible, and stopping discriminatory laws. While blockchain voting might sound like a step forward, it could actually deepen existing inequalities and make it even harder for some Americans to have their voices heard. As leading experts have pointed out, blockchain technology introduces new risks without solving the basic problems of election security and fairness. In a country where many people still lack the ID required to vote, no amount of technology can fix a system that is fundamentally unfair.
