election com

October 20, 2025

Election.com was one of the first companies to seriously test internet voting in real government elections. It launched in the late 1990s, long before most people trusted online services with high-stakes transactions. Its story is important because it shows the potential and the risks of moving elections online. If you’re trying to understand modern voting technology debates—security, turnout, accessibility—Election.com sits at the beginning of that conversation.

What Election.com Actually Was

Election.com started in 1999. The founders, Joe Mohen and Mel Schrieberg, wanted to build a complete online election platform. It handled voter registration, ballot delivery, authentication, and vote tallying. The company raised investment from major tech players like VeriSign and Accenture, which tells you they weren’t a small side project. They positioned themselves as an infrastructure provider, similar to how traditional vendors sell voting machines to governments.

They didn’t just focus on public elections. They also ran internal elections for corporations, unions, associations, and shareholder meetings. The idea was to replace mail ballots and physical voting machines with secure, web-based systems.

The Arizona Primary: Their Biggest Breakthrough

In March 2000, the Arizona Democratic Party used Election.com to run part of its presidential primary online. This was the first legally binding public election in the U.S. that allowed remote internet voting.

The results mattered:

Voter turnout increased dramatically—reports say more than 500% higher than the previous primary.
Voters could still vote in person, but more than 35,000 people chose to cast ballots online.
The system used PINs, encryption, and secured servers, which was advanced for the time.

This event made global headlines. It proved internet voting could work at scale. It also kicked off heated debates that still haven’t been resolved.

Why Governments Paid Attention

Election.com showed three major advantages of online voting:

Higher participation. People who travel, work long hours, or have mobility issues suddenly had access.
Faster results. Digital ballots don’t require physical counting or transport.
Lower long-term cost. Once infrastructure is built, every additional election is cheaper to run than printing ballots and staffing polling places.

For election officials who were tired of outdated machines and complex logistics, Election.com looked promising.

The Hard Reality: Security Concerns Hit Fast

Security experts pushed back immediately. The main problem: remote internet voting happens outside a controlled environment. You can secure servers, but you can’t secure every voter’s computer.

Common issues:

Malware could alter votes before they’re submitted.
Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks could crash servers.
Hackers could target weak authentication processes.
Voters at home could be coerced or influenced.

The company didn’t allow full independent audits of its systems, which worried observers. Without transparency, no one could verify that the results were tamper-proof or even reproducible.

Trust Is the Real Barrier

Elections aren’t just about technology. They’re about public confidence. A voting system is useless if people don’t believe in the result. Even one rumor of hacking can delegitimize an entire race.

Election.com had working technology, but governments operate under layers of regulation, certification, and public oversight. Internet voting didn’t fit neatly into existing laws. Most election officials backed away once they realized the political risk of adopting a system they couldn’t fully explain or prove secure.

The Business Challenges

Beyond technology and trust, Election.com faced business-model issues. Selling voting services to governments is slow, competitive, and heavily regulated. Private elections (unions, homeowner associations, corporate boards) were easier business, but not as financially significant.

Their costs were high. Their revenue wasn’t stable. They needed wide adoption to scale, but widespread adoption required political consensus—and that didn’t exist.

By 2003, Accenture acquired the election services part of the company. After that, Election.com faded as an independent brand.

What They Got Right

Election.com still deserves credit for several breakthroughs:

Proved large-scale online voting was possible.
Increased turnout significantly in a real election.
Built early authentication and encryption models.
Made election officials think differently about digital options.
Laid groundwork for today’s secure election platforms.

Many modern absentee, military, and overseas ballot tools borrow from infrastructure Election.com helped create.

What Went Wrong

Problems were not about a single failure. They were systemic:

1. Overestimation of readiness. The internet in 2000 was not secure enough.
2. Lack of transparency. Refusing audits damaged trust.
3. Regulatory gray zones. There were no clear standards or certifications for internet voting.
4. Perception of risk. Security experts and the media repeatedly highlighted “what if” scenarios that scared officials.
5. Public anxiety. People were already uneasy after voting issues in the 2000 U.S. election (Florida recount, hanging chads, etc.). Adding new tech made them more cautious, not less.

The Legacy in 2025

Even though the original company no longer exists, its influence remains. Internet voting is still debated. Some countries only allow partial digital voting (e.g., for overseas or disabled voters). Estonia is the only country that uses nationwide internet voting regularly. Others have tested it in limited pilots.

Election.com’s story still gets cited in policy reports, academic research, and government hearings. It’s a reference point for both potential and risk.

Modern election systems now emphasize:

Paper backups
End-to-end verifiability
Voter-verified audit trails
Independent certification
Public transparency

Those principles came directly from the issues Election.com surfaced.

Common Mistakes When Trying to Implement Internet Voting

Election organizers or vendors still repeat certain mistakes:

Skipping audits. If observers can’t inspect the system, the results will always be questioned.
Weak authentication. Secure login is harder than it looks, especially at national scale.
Ignoring digital divide. Not all voters have equal internet access or digital literacy.
Assuming higher turnout fixes legitimacy. High participation is useless if the results aren’t trusted.
Treating elections like a typical software project. Elections require legal compliance, chain of custody, public communication, and disaster recovery plans.

What Happens If You Don’t Do It Right

If an internet election fails—technically or politically—the fallout is massive:

Legal challenges
Loss of trust in democratic institutions
Potential re-votes (which cost money and time)
Long-term resistance to any digital upgrades

The stakes are higher than most industries. You can’t “beta test” democracy in production and hope for the best.

Why Election.com Still Matters

The company didn’t survive, but the questions it raised are still active:

Can we make voting more accessible without sacrificing security?
How do we verify digital votes?
Who audits the system?
Should we even allow remote online voting?
What level of risk is acceptable in a democratic process?

Whether you support or oppose internet voting, you’re arguing on ground Election.com helped map out.

FAQ

Was Election.com the first company to try online voting?
It was the first to run a legally binding statewide U.S. election online, which made it the most influential early provider.

Did their system ever get hacked?
No confirmed breaches were reported, but independent experts were not allowed full access to verify security.

Why did they fail as a business?
High cost, limited adoption, regulatory uncertainty, and lack of sustained government contracts.

Is internet voting used today?
In a limited way. Some countries allow overseas voters or specific groups to vote online. Full remote voting is still rare.

Could Election.com work today with modern technology?
Technology is better, but the core issues—security, transparency, trust—are still difficult. The company’s concept would need major adjustments to meet modern standards.

What’s the main lesson from Election.com?
Voting technology must balance convenience with verifiable trust. If the public can’t confirm the accuracy of results, no amount of innovation matters.