The Election Machine Generating Danish Democracy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Election Machine Generating Danish Democracy PhD dissertation Anne Kathrine Pihl Vadgaard IT University of Copenhagen, 2016 Manuscript for PhD dissertation Submitted to the IT University of Copenhagen, March 2016 Title: The Election Machine – Generating Danish Democracy Author: Anne Kathrine Pihl Vadgaard Contact: [email protected] Supervisor: Christopher Gad, IT University of Copenhagen Co-supervisor: Steffen Dalsgaard, IT University of Copenhagen Contents List of illustrations……………………………………………………………. v Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………........ vii Introduction: The Election Machine………………………………………. 11 Towards a study of democratic practices………………………………… 14 Democracy in action……………………………………………………… 20 Locating elections………………………………………………………… 23 The election as a machine………………………………………………… 28 An ethnography of elections……………………………………………… 41 Structure of the thesis………………………………………………….…. 47 1. The Electoral Centre………………………………………………………. 51 Election day planning……………………………………………………. 56 Managing electoral unpredictability……………………………………... 68 … when it (finally) happens……………………………………………... 76 Mundane Infrastructuring of the unruly election………………………… 81 2. The Politics of the Proposition……………………………………...…… 85 Compiling and complicating…………………………………………...… 87 Chains of responsibility………………………………………………….. 95 Disengaged responsibility………………………………………...……… 99 The politics of the proposition…………………………………………… 103 Taking the proposition seriously………………………………….……… 108 3. The Quest for Valhalla ……………………………………………………. 113 Valhalla…………………………………………………………………… 116 The search for the system………………………………………………… 118 Softening and slowing down the implementation………………...……… 124 Cleaning the data….……………………………………………………… 127 Keeping Valhalla alive…………………………………………………… 133 Hesitation as a response…………..………………………………….…… 135 The successes and failures of Valhalla……………...……………………. 137 4. Ordering Candidacy……………………………………….………………. 139 Ordering politicians………………………………………………………. 140 The two Leaf Parties……………….……………………………...……… 143 Candidate list chaos………..……………………………………...……… 146 Ordering practices…..………………………………………………….… 147 Confined concerns…..………………………………………………….… 152 From lists to candidacy…..……………………………………….……… 155 Reversibility and irreversibility of candidacy…..……………...………… 160 An ambivalent companionship…………………………………………… 164 5. Counting, Cutting, Calculating and Accounting……………………… 171 The pragmatic decision…….………………………………...…………… 172 Counting toward the election result…...…………………………..……… 174 ‘Good’ counting……………………………………………………...…… 184 The networked decision……...…………………………………………… 190 Electoral accountability…………..………………………….…………… 192 ‘Countability’ and the uncontested election result…………..…………… 197 Conclusions: The Election Machine made visible…..….……………. 203 References………..………………………………….….……………. 213 List of Illustrations Fig. 1.1: Excerpt from the secretary guideline…………………………….. 60 Fig. 1.2: Polling station, Bakke School……………………………………. 78 Fig. 2.1: Snippet from Map of polling districts……………..……………... 90 Fig. 2.2: Section on cost from the proposition…………………………….. 94 Fig. 4.1: Candidate list template…………………………………………… 149 Fig. 4.2: Screenshot, CICS………………………………………………… 157 Fig. 5.1: Picture of the fine count……..……………..…………………….. 173 Fig. 5.2: Pictures of counting ballots.…...…………………………………. 179 Fig. 5.3: Election result, Municipal Election…..……………………...…… 199 v vi Acknowledgements The completion of this thesis has benefited tremendously from discussions with and support of a number of colleagues and friends. First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to the Copenhagen election team for letting me into the ‘election machine’ and taking me through every little step of the election. I am amazed by the careful, diligent work of these employees, who remain anonymous in this thesis. Without hesitation, they opened their office to me, shared their thoughts and answered my endless questions thoroughly and patiently even while they were hard at work during Election Day. This study would not have been possible without their openness and kindness. I have immense gratitude for my supervisor, Christopher Gad, who with equal doses of patience and intellectual stimulation has guided me through the years of this project. Christopher has generously read through several drafts and been able to detect possibilities in my material long before they became visible to me. He proved a constant source of analytical inspiration and I am beyond grateful for our many conversations and his constant support. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Steffen Dalsgaard for inspiring conversations and intellectual guidance throughout the process. I am extremely grateful for having such dedicated and encouraging supervisors. At the IT University, I owe special thanks to the Technologies in Practice (TiP) research group members for their support and stimulating conversations throughout my study. I wish to thank Rachel Douglas-Jones who has been an extraordinary source of inspiration in particular when dealing with the, at times, dry bureaucratic work empirically, and in general when dealing with life as a young scholar. Our conversations throughout my study and her thorough reading and editing during the final stages of this PhD have proved invaluable. I am grateful for critical reading and constructive inputs from Mark Elam, Vasiliki Baka and Endre Dányi (Goethe University Frankfurt) during my work in progress seminars. These opened up to new analytical endeavors, I would not have followed otherwise. Many others in the TiP group have shared intellectual insights and engaged in interesting discussions throughout my project; Brit Ross Winthereik, Ingmar Lippert, Marisa Cohn, Nina Boulus-Rødje. And to my fellow PhD students at ITU and beyond – Nanna Gorm, Sofie Stenbøg, Olivier Bélanger, Louise Torntoft Jensen, Marie Ryberg, Line Thorsen, Andreas Birkbak – thank you for your support, motivating conversations about this messy process, for the ‘shut-up-and-write’ sessions, our monthly PhD group moaning and groaning meetings, and discussions on STS and politics over tea. Especially, I am indebted to dissertation writing allies James Maquire, Marie Ertner, vii and Lea Schick for sharing both the good and the dreadful times of making it to the finish line. I am grateful for the warm welcome at the Department of Anthropology, UC Irvine. During my research stay, I was writing very early and rough chapter drafts, while still trying to figure out what I was in fact studying. In this process, I have much appreciation for the inspiring comments and new ideas offered by Mei Zhan and the dissertation-writing group at UCI. Special thanks go to the research project Democratic Technologies (Demtech) and in particular Randi Markussen and Carsten Schürmann. Their efforts to create and drive forward an interdisciplinary research in close collaboration with municipal and other partners have benefitted my project immensely. Demtech has taken some twists and turns during my affiliation with the project, most notable during the 2013 e-voting debates in Denmark. While these at times made it almost too exciting to participate, it has been an absolute pleasure take part in the Demtech-journey with the rest of the research group. I thank my family and friends for supporting me through this process. Irina, who has been my academic partner in crime long before I started this project and with whom I have discussed every little detail about PhD-life and life in general. I am grateful for the endless emotional support and encouragement provided by my anthro-cohort, Katrine, Ida, Sophie, Susanne, Julie, Tone, Elisabeth, Maria and Marie. I thank my family for their belief in me and unconditionally support. And most of all I want to thank Benjamin, my loving and understanding husband. I could not have done this without you. Thank you. viii ix Introduction The Election Machine On March 21 2013, Michael Aastrup Jensen, IT spokesperson and Member of Parliament for Venstre (the major party of the centre-right in Denmark) withdrew his party’s support for law proposal L132 on e-voting in Denmark. L132 would have allowed municipalities to conduct trials with electronic voting and counting in selected municipalities during the forthcoming election. But without the support from Venstre, the government could not form a majority in parliament, and the law proposal was rejected. To a Danish news site Jensen stated that; Venstre will not take part in undermining the trust in the election. Our democracy is way too important to experiment on in order to test a new technology. At the present moment, e-voting is not secure enough for implementation in Denmark. (Jensen in Kildebogaard 2013, my translation) At this time, I had conducted two months of fieldwork in the election office in Copenhagen Municipality, which, as I will describe below, became my major field site. Initially, Copenhagen Municipality supported the law proposal. In a letter to the 11 The Election Machine Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior in January 2012, Copenhagen and 11 other municipalities requested permission to conduct trials with e-voting at the forthcoming election. In addition, my PhD project is part of the Democratic Technologies research project (Demtech) on voting technologies which played a significant role in the debate on the law proposal: Demtech collaborated with various municipalities, including Copenhagen, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior, the project participated in the public hearing of the law, and politicians referred