Anchorage, Alaska, finds itself at a crossroads with its decision to pilot smartphone voting for the upcoming municipal elections in April. Critics warn that this approach poses significant risks to the security and integrity of American elections.
The Anchorage Assembly approved the initiative in December under the ordinance AO 2025-109(S), positioning it as a convenient option for Alaskans living abroad, students, and those in remote areas. However, the promise of ease is overshadowed by concerns raised by experts. Andrew Appel, a computer scientist from Princeton, cautioned, “Voting by internet is not securable by any known technology.” This stark warning speaks volumes about the underlying vulnerabilities in such systems.
The selection of the Mobile Voting Project, led by billionaire entrepreneur Bradley Tusk, has caught national attention. Tusk’s push for smartphone voting aims to modernize democracy, but many experts view this as a risky maneuver. Critics contend that facilitating smartphone voting could unleash a myriad of problems. One social media commentator succinctly expressed skepticism: “Democrats are dumb. They want everyone to vote with a phone. Mass voter fraud would ensue and our elections would collapse.”
How it works
The smartphone voting system is straightforward—eligible voters log in with personal details and a unique PIN from election officials, allowing them to cast their votes electronically. Afterwards, those ballots are printed and counted alongside paper votes at the Election Center. In theory, this looks efficient. However, experts point out that it fails to meet even the most basic standards for secure remote communication, much less for national elections.
Appel echoed sentiments from past cybersecurity reviews, stating, “You cannot verify that an electronically transmitted vote is the one a human actually cast.” These warnings are grounded in evidence from previous voting trials both in America and abroad. For instance, West Virginia’s pilot program using the Voatz app faced multiple failures during security audits, raising red flags about the viability of internet-based voting.
Internationally, similar attempts have faltered. Ecuador halted its 2023 online voting initiative after experiencing security breaches. Australia scrapped its digital voting plans after substantial failures in 2021. Despite Estonia’s long-standing online voting practice, its system remains questionable compared to traditional methods.
False promises
Supporters argue that smartphone voting could enhance voter turnout by simplifying the process. Yet, studies indicate otherwise. Reviews of voting systems in places like Switzerland and Estonia show minimal impact on voter participation. Additionally, a behavioral study revealed that nearly a quarter of those targeted by online scams fell victim to fraud, highlighting pervasive public vulnerabilities in the digital arena. In electoral contexts, such failures carry severe consequences. As one analyst pointed out, “You cannot recall a vote the way you block a fraudulent credit charge.”
Anchorage Municipal Clerk Jamie Heinz has pushed back against claims made by The New York Times, but her core acknowledgment of the program’s rollout hasn’t assuaged fears. “This is a foundational threat,” warned one election security expert. He emphasized, “No checklist, no encryption, no biometric can protect a vote cast in a system that isn’t end-to-end auditable.”
A slippery slope
Anchorage’s trial targets a local election with relatively few positions at stake, yet critics contend this sets a precarious precedent. Small-scale experiments can lay the groundwork for broader changes, often unnoticed until it’s too late. Tusk’s aim of scaling smartphone voting to national elections looms large, raising alarms about its potential normalization. One legal analyst cautioned, “They’re using these local races to create a feeling of inevitability. But inevitability is not legitimacy.”
A constitutional red line
Opponents of smartphone voting argue from a constitutional perspective as well. The U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to verifiable elections, and without mechanisms like paper ballots and voter ID checks, phone voting threatens the foundation of representative governance. The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which upheld voter ID laws, underscores the imperative of maintaining public confidence in electoral processes.
Without physical controls or the ability to conduct recounts, the likelihood of verifying a freely cast vote declines sharply. Critics point out that voting via smartphone also diminishes the privacy traditionally found in private booths, opening avenues for coercion. Even with two-step verification, if someone controls a voter’s device, that individual could influence the vote.
“Collapse” not hyperbole
Experts warn that expanding internet-based voting could create new vulnerabilities for manipulation by both foreign and domestic adversaries. A pre-election threat bulletin from the Center for Internet Security highlighted potential phishing campaigns and malware as real threats to the integrity of elections, underscoring the ease of constructing fake ballot portals. If trusted systems face a breach or manipulation, restoring public confidence could take decades, if it can be restored at all. “The prudent sees danger and hides himself,” noted one piece opposing smartphone voting, citing Proverbs 22:3.
Conclusion
The Anchorage pilot program may appear modest, but the stakes are significant. Critics argue that embracing smartphone voting could precipitate the collapse of America’s electoral system. When technological convenience overshadows trust and scrutiny, not just ballots, but the very essence of democracy is at risk. The commentary in a viral tweet reflects a broader anxiety: “Democrats are dumb. They want everyone to vote with a phone. Mass voter fraud would ensue and our elections would collapse.” Regardless of agreement with its tone, the underlying concerns highlight the urgency of the conversation.
"*" indicates required fields
