Who’s in charge? The impact of delivery and perception of risk on the willingness to voting online
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221120143 |
| Author | Justin Fisher,Manu M. Savani |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221120143
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(4) 676 –700
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481221120143
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Who’s in charge? The impact
of delivery and perception of
risk on the willingness to voting
online
Justin Fisher and Manu M. Savani
Abstract
What makes voters more or less willing to vote online? This article uses a unique survey
experiment to assess the effect of information about who delivers the online ballot; and which
groups of voters are more likely to take up the option of online voting. Voters are much more
favourable if it is associated with a public body than a well-regarded private sector company. We
also find a clear relationship between online activity in the personal world and a willingness to
vote online. Those that expose themselves to greater potential online risk in their personal lives
are likely to favour having the option to cast their ballot online, but those who perceive more risk
are only likely to do so if they receive additional information about the purported advantages of
online voting. Who delivers, and perception of online risk are key to understanding when voters
are more willing to cast their ballot online.
Keywords
elections, electoral administration, electoral integrity, i-voting, online voting, survey experiment
Introduction
A key elections policy across many democracies has been to introduce alternative and
potentially more convenient methods to cast the ballot. The first substantive voter reform
adopted was postal voting (Mellon et al., 2017: 14). This has proved to be popular among
voters, but has also led to significant concerns about increased electoral fraud (James and
Clark, 2020; Wilks-Heeg, 2009). With the rapid growth of digital technology, the possi-
bilities for casting votes remotely online – known as i-voting1 – have become available,
and therefore generated further prospects for alternative means of casting the ballot.
Postal voting paved the way for the adoption of i-voting, both by establishing a period of
time over which votes can be cast (unlike a single election day), and creating the possibil-
ity for remote voting (Alvarez et al., 2009: 497). And, i-voting may also be especially
effective in encouraging participation of socially excluded groups, those with mobility
Department of Social & Political Sciences, Brunel University London
Corresponding author:
Justin Fisher, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK.
Email: justin.fisher@brunel.ac.uk
1120143BPI0010.1177/13691481221120143The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsFisher and Savani
research-article2022
Original Article
Fisher and Savani 677
impairment, and the young, many of whom have grown-up with digital applications in
many aspects of their lives (Alvarez et al., 2009: 497; Vassil et al., 2016). Several coun-
tries have trialled forms of i-voting – for example, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, Estonia, France, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama, Norway, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the United States (Alvarez et al., 2013; Germann and Serdült,
2014, 2017; Goodman, 2010; Goodman and Stokes, 2018; Mellon et al., 2017; Trumm,
2021). Relatively few, however, have adopted i-voting on any scale and voters overall
continue to display some reluctance to adopt the approach. This article seeks to establish
why this may be the case and what factors lead some voters to be more willing to embrace
i-voting than others. In so doing, it makes a significant contribution to understanding
about the likelihood of citizens adopting this additional method of casting their ballots.
Comparative background and research questions
Although several countries have trialled i-voting – relatively few have adopted it on any
scale, the most prominent being Estonia, Switzerland and Canada. Estonia is widely
regarded as being the most advanced in terms of the implementing i-voting (Alvarez
et al., 2009; Krivonosova, 2021; Trechsel and Vassil, 2010; Trumm, 2021). It was the first
country in the world to have nationwide elections where all voters could choose to cast
their ballots through the Internet (Trechsel and Vassil, 2010: 10). Since 2005, the option
to vote online has been available in all elections. This derives in part from wider aspects
of Estonian policy, such that Internet access has been legislated as a social right since
2000, but has also been driven by a deliberate policy backed by the Estonian govern-
ment’s information policy, which explicitly favours information and communication
technologies (ICTs) (Trechsel and Vassil, 2010: 9–10). Voters in Estonia are increasingly
likely to vote online. Some 44% of those who turned out in the 2019 Parliamentary elec-
tions did so through the Internet (28% of the eligible electorate).2 Switzerland is also
comparatively advanced in terms of the introduction of i-voting. This is partly a function
of concerns about voter engagement when voters are called upon relatively frequently to
exercise direct democracy (Germann and Serdült, 2014), but also to encourage participa-
tion among expatriate voters. Switzerland has run trials of i-voting since 2003, but these
have been confined to just three cantons (Geneva, Neuchàtel and Zurich). In all three,
postal voting was well established and was a significantly more popular mode than cast-
ing the ballot at a polling station (Germann and Serdült, 2017: 4). Canada too has estab-
lished i-voting in selected municipal elections (Goodman and Stokes, 2018).
In many other countries, however, the use of i-voting has been spasmodic and has not
resulted in the wider adoption of the technology. Online pilots took place in the United
Kingdom in three local authority referendums between 2000 and 2001 (The Independent
Commission on Alternative Voting Methods, 2002) and the UK Electoral Commission
(the independent public body that oversees elections in the United Kingdom) ran a series
of trials from 2002 to 2007. The initial experience of the pilots was generally positive,
with a majority of voters in the evaluation exercises deeming the new availability of
online voting to make the process of voting better (MORI, 2003: 44). However, there
were concerns related to the possibility of fraud or abuse, with votes over the Internet
seen as being particularly vulnerable (MORI, 2003: 48–50). A review of the administra-
tion of the trials painted a less positive picture however (Xenakis and Macintosh, 2005),
and the last trial took place in 2007.
To continue reading
Request your trial