Electronic Voting in Belgium: A Legitimised Choice?
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| Author | Pascal Delwit,Jean-Benoit Pilet,Erol Kulahci |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00240.x |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Electronic Voting in Belgium:
A Legitimised Choice?
Pascal Delwit, Erol Kulahci and Jean-Benoit Pilet
Université libre de Bruxelles
Computer voting was introduced in Belgium in 1994. Paradoxically, no action had been taken to
ascertain the opinion of electors confronted with this original method of voting. This article veri-
fies the social and empirical dimensions of legitimacy of this new method through several empiri-
cal indicators used in a survey conducted on the occasion of the federal elections of 18 May 2003:
(a) how easy/difficult it was for electors to vote on a computer; (b) to what extent they trust voting
on a computer; (c) if they have a philosophical/social opposition to voting on a computer.
‘The King can, by decree deliberated by the Cabinet, decide that, for electoral con-
stituencies, electoral cantons or communes that he designates, an automated voting
system should be used.’1 The result of this provision inserted in the Belgian elec-
toral code by the law of 11 April 1994 was the introduction of a system of com-
puter voting in an increasing number of communes for all elections in Belgium
since 1994.2 The system used in Belgium is distinct from Internet voting and from
networked-computer voting. Voters go to the polling station where they are asked
to cast a vote on computer. The aim of the system is to make voting and the count-
ing of votes easier and quicker.3
Paradoxically, this new method of voting had not yet been assessed in depth.
In particular, no action had been taken to ascertain the opinion of electors
confronted with this original method of voting. For this reason, on the occasion of
the federal elections of 18 May 2003 in Belgium, the authors organised a major
survey among voters leaving polling stations in order to ascertain the views of
Belgians on electronic voting just after they had used this new voting technique
(Delwit, Kulahci and Pilet, 2004). Two major questions were envisaged: (a) to what
extent computer voting, as used in Belgium, is considered easy or difficult to use,
and (b) whether electronic voting is accepted or rejected socially by electors who
use it?
In this article, we present the results of the survey analysed in the light of the most
contemporary experiences and theoretical hypotheses.
The theoretical framework
Scientific research on the use of new electronic technologies in the electoral process
is particularly wide ranging in scope and is not solely the prerogative of political
science. In this article, which is based firmly on a political science approach, we
deal with a clearly determined problem, namely the legitimacy of new electronic
© Political Studies Association, 2005.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
154
PA S C A L D E LW I T, E R O L K U L A H C I A N D J E A N - B E N O I T P I L E T
technologies as part of the electoral process and system and, therefore, of
democracy.
The question of the legitimacy of new electronic technologies in the electoral
process has already been studied in various research publications. For example,
Auer and Von Arx have attempted to develop an ideal-type of the procedural legiti-
macy of e-voting insisting on criteria such as security, transparency and control of
the voting process and of the counting of votes (Auer and Von Arx, 2001). The
same type of research was carried out by Gritzalis (2002) and Saltman (1998)
among others. Similarly, several researchers have focused their attention on the
vulnerability of New Information and Communication Technologies (NICT) to
hacking and viruses (Fairweather and Rogerson, 2003). Other authors have under-
scored the philosophical criteria (equality, fairness, secrecy, freedom) necessary for
the acceptance of electronic voting and for its formal legitimacy (Watt and Birch,
2002; Birch and Watt, 2004). Yet, it is only recently that empirical political research
into electronic voting has developed and is now expanding rapidly, notably the
research of Shocket, Heighberger and Brown (1992), Kersting and Baldersheim
(2004), Norris (2002) and Gibson (2002).
Most of this research concentrates on formal criteria needed to guarantee the
formal legitimacy, the legality, of the introduction of ICTs into the electoral process.
Yet, as Joseph Weiler stated, there is a complement to formal legitimacy that is
social legitimacy. This latter concept ‘connotes a broad empirically determined,
societal acceptance of the system’ (Weiler, 1999, p. 80). This article is intended to
verify this social and empirical dimension of legitimacy. To do so, we need to opera-
tionalise social legitimacy through several empirical indicators. These indicators
must help to measure to what extent computer voting is socially accepted by voters.
In previous research led by other scholars, social acceptance was tested on the basis
of three key indicators: ease versus difficulty of use; acceptance versus rejection;
confidence versus mistrust. The first aspect, namely ease versus difficulty of use,
was raised by surveys based on electronic voting tests carried out by the EU in
Bremen and Stockholm (Cybervote, 1999), and in the UK (Independent Commis-
sion on Alternative Voting Methods, 2002; MORI, 2003). The question of accep-
tance versus rejection of electronic voting has occasionally been addressed. The
European Union alluded to it briefly in the Stockholm test (Cybervote, 1999,
p. 31). Moreover, Swiss researchers have highlighted that the vast majority of
Internet users in Geneva (91.6 per cent) were in favour of the Internet (Trechsel,
Mendez and Kies, 2003). Finally, the issue of confidence versus mistrust with
regard to electronic voting is the one that has been the most developed, as can be
seen from the public and private reports in Sweden (Election Technique 2000 Com-
mission, 2000), the Netherlands (Ministerie van binnenland zaken, 2003), Canada
(KPMG Sussex Circle, 1998), Belgium (Bourgaux, 2001), the USA (Kohno,
Stubblefield, Rubin and Wallach, 2004) and the UK (Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 2002).
In our paper, we used the same three indicators and included them in a survey
carried out at the exit of the polling stations, involving 1,637 Belgian electors (18
May 2003 federal elections). After a series of questions on their social status,
respondents were asked to express:
© Political Studies Association, 2005.
E L E C T R O N I C V O T I N G I N B E L G I U M : A L E G I T I M I S E D C H O I C E ?
155
• how easy/difficult it was for them to vote on a computer;
• to what extent they trust voting on a computer;
• if they have a philosophical/social opposition to voting on a computer.
These questions were asked only to voters who used computer voting and not to
those who used paper...
To continue reading
Request your trial