Opinion article
Following the announcement by the Central Election Commission (CEC) about technical issues with the election system, public concern is understandable. Not because the issues were resolved — but because they were possible in the first place. And even more troubling — perhaps they were predictable.
The public was told that the week-long early voting period was a convenience for voters. However, the current developments raise the question — was it actually a forced buffer zone for a system whose reliability is not yet guaranteed? Has this week turned into a testing ground? Matters are made worse by CEC Chairwoman Kristīne Saulīte’s remark that the election system is new, and “such minor issues are to be expected.” If they were expected — why weren’t they addressed in time? Why are problems being discovered during the actual election process rather than its preparation? Has the electoral process truly become a field experiment?
Elections are not an app that can simply be restarted. The results cannot be “rewritten” after the fact. When public trust in the election process is questioned, the legitimacy of the results is also questioned. The authority of democracy doesn’t collapse suddenly — it erodes gradually, with each such shaky precedent.
Where does a mistake end and negligence begin?
Chairman of the Riga City Election Commission, Māris Zviedris, had already expressed concerns about the system’s readiness. Now, those concerns have materialized. On Monday evening, the election system experienced disruptions. CEC representative Andrejs Vaivars declined to comment, stating that responsibility lies with the State Agency for Digital Affairs (VDAA)
VDAA Director Jorens Liops stated that the disruptions were brief and related to the uploading of voter turnout data, but did not specify exactly what happened, how significant the impact was, or what guarantees exist that such incidents won’t recur before Saturday.
There is no publicly available detailed information on the scope of system testing, security audits, or risk simulations. Several crucial questions remain unanswered — and the public has the right to transparent answers: Were full-scale stress tests conducted? Were possible manipulation scenarios modelled? And why was the system deemed ready if the so-called “minor issues” were already known?
Without this information, the public cannot be reassured that the election system is transparent, secure, and capable of delivering unalterable results. Institutional silence in this situation only deepens the concerns. Trust should not be begged for — it must be earned through transparency and accurate communication. At this moment, voters are asking not only “Whom should I vote for?” but also — “Will my vote be counted correctly?” And such a question should have no place in a democratic society. If it arises, someone is responsible for it.
This raises even more questions: Are the CEC, VDAA, and other involved institutions legally and technically prepared to justify every aspect of the election system’s operation? Can they confirm that not a single vote was lost or distorted due to a system error? Does verifiable documentation even exist for everything that has occurred?