Session Profile: Leo Kunnas
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
2024-04-17
Political Position
The political focus is on ensuring the reliability and security of e-voting. The speaker is strongly critical of the current system, citing its international isolation and drawing parallels with Russian practices. The stance is distinctly procedural and security-oriented, underscoring the fundamental necessity of transparency. The criticism targets the system's deficiencies rather than political values themselves.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the technical and legal specifics of e-voting, covering system components (e.g., the collector, processor, and reader component) and security measures. Specific terminology is employed, such as "mathematically provably recoverable" and "internationally accredited and validated system." The necessity for risk analysis, auditing, and technical penetration testing is emphasized.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, particularly concerning the actions of the commission that qualified the proposed amendments as insincere. Powerful historical analogies (KGB Captain Ilyashevich, a quote from Stalin) are employed to underscore the lack of trustworthiness. Logical argumentation (a detailed list of specific paragraphs and points) is combined with emotional appeal (by drawing associations with Russian political practice).
6 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker was highly active during the session, submitting several substantive amendments, participating in the question-and-answer round, and even requesting three minutes of additional time. This pattern of activity indicates a focus on detailed legislative work and procedural debate. The data is limited to a single plenary session.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is with the Riigikogu committee, which is being criticized for the unlawful consolidation of amendments and the rejection of substantive security measures. The criticism is intense and procedural, accusing the committee of ignoring elementary security requirements. The opposition also extends to the system's proponents, citing the insincerity of their actions.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker is operating from the opposition, focusing on defending their amendments which had been rejected by the committee. Cooperation is being sought through support from the floor, with a call to back Motion No. 31. There is no evidence of successful cross-party cooperation during the processing of the draft bill.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is clearly international and national, comparing Estonia's e-voting system with the practices of other democratic countries (the USA, Europe, and Asia). It is emphasized that only Russia has followed Estonia's example, using the system even in occupied territories.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
6 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The issue of the reliability and security of the electoral process is examined, a matter directly tied to ensuring civil rights. To enhance security, the implementation of facial recognition technology was proposed for verifying the identity of the voter.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the draft amendment to the electoral law, which aims to strengthen the security and transparency of e-voting. The speaker is an active proponent of amendments, concentrating on requirements for international accreditation, the inclusion of observers, and preventing vote manipulation. All proposals submitted were aimed at increasing public trust.
6 Speeches Analyzed