Agenda Profile: Mart Maastik
Second Reading of the Draft Act (344 SE) on the Amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act and Related Amendment of Other Acts
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the M-Voting Bill (344 SE), emphasizing that the legislation is being forced through despite significant security and implementation issues acknowledged by both the rapporteur and experts. This stance focuses primarily on procedural and effectiveness critiques, questioning the necessity of introducing M-Voting alongside existing paper and electronic ballots. The speaker stresses that security must be absolutely guaranteed, and therefore, the bill cannot be supported.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the technical aspects of election security, referencing spyware, problems with 5G network development, and the loss of control over the distribution of the voter application to tech giants (Google, Apple). This expertise is bolstered by citing the opinions of Sven Heiberg, an expert from the Electoral Commission and Cybernetica AS, who highlighted three significant risks, including the lack of authenticity and integrity control. The difficulty of verifying the vote when using the QR code protocol is also addressed.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical and skeptical, employing logical arguments grounded in security risks and expert warnings. The speaker repeatedly poses rhetorical questions regarding the timing and necessity of the draft bill ("why are you coming here now?"). The term "amulet" is used ironically, referring to the vagueness of security guarantees and the emphasis on trust rather than control.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participated in the second reading of Bill 344 SE, held on April 17, 2024, asking several questions of the rapporteur and delivering a lengthy speech in opposition. This pattern of activity demonstrates a focus on the critical analysis of legislation and the raising of procedural issues.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed squarely at the bill's initiators and the rapporteur, criticizing both the procedural haste and the substantive aspect of the policy (namely, the lack of security). The criticism is intense, highlighting the threat of cyberattacks and drawing comparisons between the implementation of Estonia's e-voting program and the systems utilized in Venezuela and Russia, thereby casting doubt on the system's overall reliability.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Insufficient data
6 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national electoral legislation and international comparison, citing examples of technology security risks (China/Huawei) and electoral practices in other countries. It is emphasized that other countries consider security paramount, which is why they do not implement mobile voting (m-voting).
6 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue revolves around the security and reliability of democratic processes. The speaker places the integrity and auditability of elections first, warning that technological innovation must not introduce security risks that could enable hacking or the alteration of results.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently on opposing Draft Bill 344 SE, which concerns amending the Riigikogu Election Act to permit mobile voting (m-voting). The speaker is firmly opposed, demanding that the bill be rejected and defeated due to a lack of security, while also emphasizing that e-voting procedures generally require improved security controls.
6 Speeches Analyzed