Most of the discussion in this topic area has concentrated on electronic technology, particularly computers. However, there are other innovative uses of materials that can be applied to electoral purposes that do not fall under the electronic or computer umbrellas.
Some of these materials include:
- Plastics, for ballot boxes, voting compartments and security seals
- Cardboard, for ballot boxes, voting compartments and polling place furniture
- Tamper-evident materials
- Dyes and inks to prevent multiple voting
While many of the behind-the-scenes processes in an election can be automated with electronic devices, the polling process itself is often a non-electronic affair. This is in part because of the enormous cost of providing electronics, such as computers or electronic voting devices, at large numbers of polling places for an infrequent, one-day-every-few-years event. Nevertheless, innovative use of non-electronic technology can be employed at polling places.
Many standard ballot boxes are manufactured from wood or metal. These tend to be heavy, cumbersome and costly to transport and store between elections. Light-weight, disposable or recyclable ballot boxes can be manufactured from cardboard. Light-weight, collapsible, reusable ballot boxes can be manufactured from plastic.
Cardboard and plastic ballot boxes do not prevent significant physical barriers to intruders. A padlock on a cardboard ballot box would not stop an intruder with a knife, for example. Cardboard and plastic ballot boxes can, however, be designed in such a way as to make it impossible for intruders to gain access to the contents of the box without leaving visible evidence. This is usually achieved by sealing the box with uniquely numbered plastic seals. The numbers on the seals are recorded by polling officials in front of witnesses, and the seals are checked before the ballot box is opened at the end of the poll to ensure that the seals have not been broken or substituted.
Similarly, voting screens, intended to facilitate a secret ballot, can be manufactured from lightweight cardboard or plastic. Unlike old fashioned wooden screens, cardboard or plastic screens are easier to transport and store. Cardboard screens can be disposed of or recycled rather than stored, as it may be more cost effective to buy new screens for each election rather than pay to store screens between elections.
Cardboard can also be used to make other items of temporary polling place equipment, such as tables, signs and queuing fences.
Tamper-evident materials can be used (often in conjunction with cardboard materials) to secure material, not so that it cannot be tampered with, but so that it will be evident whether tampering has occurred. Examples of tamper-evident materials include plastic or paper uniquely numbered seals on ballot boxes, which cannot be removed without destroying the seals. The numbers on the seals are recorded by polling officials when the seals are adhered before polling begins, usually in front of witnesses such as party workers. The numbers on the seals are then checked against the official record before they are broken and the ballot boxes are opened at the counting centre.
Other innovative materials include dyes and inks used to mark the fingers of voters to ensure that they can only vote once in an election. Some inks are invisible to the naked eye, but detectable to ultra-violet light, making them difficult to deliberately remove. When such invisible inks are used, each voter must have their hands checked under an ultra-violet light to be sure their hands are not marked. After voting, at least one finger is dipped in the ink. Other inks and dyes are visible, but are persistent and the manufacturers claim they cannot be removed over the short time of polling.
Whether such inks or dyes are appropriate to a particular country's circumstances will depend on the level of risk that voters will attempt to vote more than once and the likely cultural acceptance of such an invasive measure. Electoral authorities would need to be satisfied that use of inks or dyes did not pose a health risk to voters or polling staff.
