e-Voting as the magic ballot for European Parliamentary elections?: Evaluating e-voting in the light of experiments in UK local elections

The European Union and e-Voting: Addressing the European Parliament's Internet Voting Challenge

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 60-90

  Norris, Pippa ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144437398     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203391044     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. Further details analysing these issues can be found in Norris, P. (2001a) Digital Divide, New York: Cambridge University Press;
2. Norris, P. (2002a) Democratic Phoenix: Political Activism Worldwide, New York: Cambridge University Press;
3. Norris, P. (2004) Electoral Engineering: Electoral Rules and Voting Choices, New York: Cambridge University Press. Details are available at: www.pippanorris.com.
4. Stratford, J.S. and Stratford, J. (2001) 'Computerized and networked government information', in Journal of Government Information 28 (3): 297-301;
5. Börgers, T. (2000) 'Is internet voting a good thing?', in Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 156 (4): pp. 531-47.
6. van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (eds) (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of the Union, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press;
7. Norris, P. (2000) 'Blaming the messenger? Political communications and turnout in EU elections', in Citizen Participation in European Politics, Demokratiutredningens skrift nr 32. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar. For details of turnout in elections to the European Parliament see: www.europa.eu.int.
8. See Electoral Commission (2003) The Shape of Elections to Come, London: UK, Electoral Commission, 31 July 2003, at: www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
9. For details of the availability of these facilities see www.ACEproject.org.
10. House of Commons Library Research Paper (2003) UK Elections Statistics 1945-2003, 03-59, July 2003, p. 17.
11. See, for example, Arterton, C.F. (1987) Teledemocracy, Newbury Park, CA: Sage;
12. Schwartz, E. (1996) Netactivism: How Citizens Use the Internet, Sebastapol, CA: Songline Studios;
13. Budge, I. (1996) The New Challenge of Direct Democracy, Oxford: Polity Press;
14. Rash, W. (1997) Politics on the Net: Wiring the Political Process, New York: W.H. Freeman;
15. Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley;
16. Barber, B.R. (1998) 'Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy', in Political Science Quarterly, 113 (4): pp. 573-90.
17. Internet Policy Institute for the National Science Foundation (2001) Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting, March 2001, at: www.internetpolicy.org/research/e_voting_report.pdf;
18. The Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods (2002) Elections in the 21st Century: From Paper-Ballot to e-voting, Electoral Reform Society, January 2002, at: www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sep/publications/books/exec.pdf.
19. www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/newsid_1746000/1746902.stm.
20. Gibson, R. (2002) 'Elections online: Assessing internet voting in light of the Arizona democratic primary', in Political Science Quarterly, 116 (4): pp. 561-83;
21. Solop, F.I. (2001) 'Digital democracy comes of age: internet voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary election', in PS-Political Science & Politics 34 (2): pp. 289-93.
22. Auer, A. and Trechsel, A.H. (eds) (2001) Voter par Internet? Le projet e-voting dans le canton de Geneve dans une perspective socio-politique et juridique, www.helbing.ch.
23. See also the Geneva system described at: www.geneve.ch/chancellerie/e-Government/e-voting.html.
24. Dictson, D. and Ray, D. (2000) The Modern Democratic Revolution: An Objective Survey of Internet-Based Elections, www.Securepoll.com.
25. National Statistics Omnibus Survey (2003) 'Individuals accessing the internet', in Access to Internet from Home-Expenditure and Food Survey, January to March 2003.
26. Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide, New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. For an analysis of the social disparities in turnout see Norris, P. (2002a) op. cit., Chapter 5.
28. See Norris, P. (2002a) op. cit.;
29. Norris, P. (2004) op. cit.
30. Katz, R. (1997) Democracy and Elections, New York: Oxford University Press, Table 13.2. It should be noted that under other less democratic regimes, citizens face far more serious barriers, such as in the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe where electors stood in line at polling stations despite delays of up to 50 hours and the serious threat of intimidation, violence and coercion.
31. The best discussion of the administrative arrangements for registration and balloting found around the world can be found at www.ACE.org developed by International IDEA and IFES. For further details see Maley, M. (2000) 'Absentee voting', in Rose, R. (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Elections, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
32. See also entries by Blais, A. and Massicotte, L. (1981) 'Day of election'.
33. See also Crewe, I. 'Electoral participation', in Ranney, A. and Butler, D. (eds) Democracy at the Polls, Washington, DC: AEI Press;
34. Powell, G.B. (1986)
35. For further argument and evidence along these lines, see Franklin, M., van der Eijk, C. and Oppenhuis, E. (1996) 'The institutional context: turnout', in van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (eds) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. See the discussion in Heath, A. and Taylor, B. (1999) 'New sources of abstention?', in Evans, G. and Norris, P. (eds) Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-term Perspective, London: Sage.
37. See, for example, Whiteley, P. (2001) 'Turnout', in Norris, P. (ed.) Britain Votes 2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Office of the e-Envoy (2002) In the Service of Democracy, July, www.edemocracy.gov.uk.
39. The Electoral Commission (2002) Modernising Elections: A Strategic Evaluation of the 2002 Electoral Pilot Schemes, London: The Electoral Commission, at: www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
40. One evaluation of the experience of all-postal ballots in Oregon found that this had a modest effect on electoral turnout, particularly in low-salience contests. But the main impact was to increase voter participation among the groups already most likely to vote, thereby increasing socioeconomic inequalities in turnout. See Karp, J.A. and Banducci, S. (2000) 'Going postal: how all-mail elections influence turnout', in Political Behavior, 22 (3): pp. 223-39.
41. Franklin, M. (2002) 'Electoral participation', in LeDuc, L., Niemi, R.G. and Norris, P. (eds) Comparing Democracies 2: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, London: Sage.
42. These estimates are derived from the House of Commons Library Research Paper (2003) UK Elections Statistics 1945-2003, 03-59, July. It should be noted that the BBC estimates suggested that the Liberal Democrat share of the vote was slightly higher (30 per cent).
43. Heath, A. and Taylor, B. (1999) 'New sources of abstention?', in Evans, G. and Norris, P. (eds) Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-term Perspective, London: Sage.
44. Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (2004) 'Why parties fail to learn: electoral defeat, selective perception and British party politics', in Party Politics, 10 (1).
45. For further details about public attitudes monitored in the MORI survey, not discussed here, see UK Electoral Commission (2003) The Shape of Elections to Come, London: UK Electoral Commission, 31 July, at: www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
46. See also, MORI polls (2003) 'New ways to vote' 1 August, at: www.mori.com/polls/2003/electoralcommission.shtml.
47. Norris, P. (2003) 'Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites', in Party Politics, 9 (1): pp. 21-45.
48. Norris, P. (2002b) 'The bridging and bonding role of online communities', in The Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 7 (3): pp. 3-8.
49. Norris, P. and Sanders, D. (2003) 'Medium or Message? Campaign learning during the 2001 British general election', in Political Communications, 20 (3): pp. 233-62.
50. Norris, P. (2001b) 'Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual democracy in US elections 1992-2000', in Kamarck, E. (ed.) democracy.com. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, (revised edition).
51. For further details of this argument, see Norris, P. (2001a) op. cit.