Agenda Profile: Mario Kadastik
Debate on the matter of significant national importance: "E-elections – a threat to democracy."
2024-05-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Political Position
The political stance is strongly pro-e-voting, emphasizing its technological elegance and cryptographic security. The speaker defends the Estonian digital identity system as the foundational prerequisite for e-voting, and views the criticism from opponents primarily as a political tactic aimed at refusing to acknowledge election results. They strongly support the trustworthiness of the digital society, comparing it to the security standards of the banking sector.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates deep technical expertise in the field of e-voting and cryptography, using terms like "cryptographically," "digital identity," and "audits." They explain how the system works, emphasizing its mathematical simplicity, and compare the Estonian system to those in other countries where e-voting has failed to take hold due to a lack of public willingness. Furthermore, they highlight the potential security risks associated with paper voting (e.g., disappearing ink) as opposed to the security inherent in the e-vote.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is predominantly analytical and logical, relying on technical explanations and system comparisons. The tone is formal, yet also slightly aggressive, accusing opponents of political bias and a failure to understand technology. He criticizes the debate as a "political ball game" and regrets the absence of technical experts (RIA, VVK) from the discussion, which diminished its relevance.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in Riigikogu discussions, participating both in procedural matters (such as requesting the floor for a response) and in substantive debates. He/She responds directly to the statements and questions made by other politicians (Sutt, Põder, Valge), seeking to fill the gaps in topics that have remained unaddressed.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at EKRE, whose repeated attempts to challenge the e-election results are deemed unsuccessful and procedurally flawed (for instance, the appeal was timed incorrectly). The speaker criticizes the motives of the opposition, implying that this is a political tactic designed to disregard the election outcome, rather than a genuine concern about security.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker supports and acknowledges the arguments of his colleague, Andres Sutt, and attempts to answer questions that others have left unaddressed. He/She emphasizes the necessity of involving technical experts (RIA, VVK) in the discussions for the sake of a more balanced and substantive debate, demonstrating an openness to technical cooperation.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the national level (Estonian digital identity, the voting system) and international comparison, explaining why other countries have not implemented e-voting. Local or regional topics are absent.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among the social topics addressed are citizens' readiness and willingness to use electronic identity, and the need to improve public clarification and training regarding election procedures. He/She emphasizes that a lack of understanding of the system constitutes a major part of the problem that needs to be solved.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on auditing and refining election procedures and rules during the inter-election period, rather than immediately following an election. He/She stresses that the procedural rules must be correct, perfectly clear, and unambiguous, and that this process should be handled systematically.
4 Speeches Analyzed