Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:28:41.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voting Made Safe and Easy: The Impact of e-voting on Citizen Perceptions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2013

R. Michael Alvarez ,
Ines Levin ,
Julia Pomares  and
Marcelo Leiras
R. Michael Alvarez
Affiliation:
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology
Ines Levin
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Georgia
Julia Pomares
Affiliation:
Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth
Marcelo Leiras
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Universidad de San Andrés and Conicet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voting technologies frame the voting experience. Different ways of presenting information to voters, registering voter choices and counting ballots may change the voting experience and cause individuals to re-evaluate the legitimacy of the electoral process. Yet few field experiments have evaluated how voting technologies affect the voting experience. This article uses unique data from a recent e-voting field experiment in Salta, Argentina to study these questions. It employs propensity-score matching methods to measure the causal effect of replacing traditional voting technology with e-voting on the voting experience. The study's main finding is that while e-voters perceive the new technology as easier to use and more likely to register votes as intended—and support replacing traditional voting technologies with e-voting—the new technologies also raise some concerns about ballot secrecy.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 2013 , pp. 117 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

R. Michael Alvarez is Professor of Political Science, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd., MC 228-77, Pasadena, CA 91125 (rma@hss.caltech.edu). Ines Levin is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, 104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, Georgia, 30602 (ilevin@uga.edu). Julia Pomares is Director of the Politics and Public Management Program, Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth, Av. Callao 25, 1° C1022AAA, Buenos Aires, Argentina (jpomares@cippec.org). Marcelo Leiras is Director of Undergraduate Studies in Political Science and International Relations, Universidad de San Andrés, Vito Dumas 284 (1644) Victoria, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina (mleiras@udesa.edu.ar). Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2013.2.

References

Alvarez, R. MichaelHall, Thad E.. 2004. Point, Click and Vote: The Future of Internet Voting. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. MichaelHall, Thad E.. 2008. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E.Llewellyn, Morgan H.. 2008. ‘Are Americans Confident their Ballots are Counted?’ Journal of Politics 70(3):754–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, GabrielPomares, Julia. 2011. ‘The Impact of New Technologies on Voter Confidence in Latin America: Evidence from E-Voting Experiments in Argentina and Colombia’. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 8(2):199–217.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, Gabriel, Llamosa, Ricardo, Martinez, Hugo E.. 2009. ‘Assessing Voters’ Attitudes Towards Electronic Voting in Latin America: Evidence from Colombia's 2007 E-Voting Pilot Project’. In E-Voting and Identity—Proceedings of the Second International Conference VOTE-ID 2009, edited by Peter Ryan and Berry Schoenmakers, 75–91. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, SarahWatt, Bob. 2004. ‘Remote Electronic Voting: Free, Fair and Secret?’ Political Quarterly 75(1):60–72.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, Escolar, MarceloPomares, Julia. 2009. ‘Ballot Design and Split-Ticket Voting in Multiparty Systems: Experimental Evidence on Information Effects and Vote Choice’. Electoral Studies 28(2):218–231.Google Scholar
Calvo, ErnestoLeiras, Marcelo. 2011. La Forma de Votar Importa. Nota Técnica. Centro de Implementación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento [Voting Procedures Matter. Technical Note. Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth]. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
Card, David E.Moretti, Enrico. 2007. ‘Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touch-Screen Voting and the 2004 Presidential Election’. Review of Economics and Statistics 89(4):660–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., Magleby, David B., Monson, J. Quin, Patterson, Kelly D.. Forthcoming. ‘Voter Confidence and the Election-Day Voting Experience’. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
Cochran, William G.Rubin, Donald B.. 1973. ‘Controlling Bias in Observational Studies: A Review’. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics 35(4):417–446.Google Scholar
Delwit, Pascal., Kulahci, Erol., Pilet, Jean-Benoit. 2004. ‘Electronic Voting in Belgium: Social Mistrust or Trust?’ Unpublished manuscript. Brussels.Google Scholar
Delwit, Pascal, Kulahci, ErolPilet, Jean-Benoit. 2005. ‘Electronic Voting in Belgium: A Legitimized Choice?’ Politics 25(3):153–164.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1975. ‘A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support’. British Journal of Political Science 5(4):435–457.Google Scholar
Everett, Sarah P., Greene, Kristen K., Byrne, Michael D., Wallach, Dan S., Derr, Kyle, Sandler, Daniel, Torous, Ted. 2008. Electronic Voting Machines versus Traditional Methods: Improved Preference, Similar Performance. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI 2008, 883–92. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., Hill., Seth J. Forthcoming. ‘Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment’. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., Niemi, Richard G., Hanmer, Michael J., Bederson, Benjamin B., Conrad, Frederick C.Traugott, Michael W.. 2008. Voting Technology: The Not-So-Simple Act of Casting a Ballot. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., Hanmer, Michael J.Niemi, Richard G.. 2012. ‘The Impact of Ballot Type on Voter Errors’. American Journal of Political Science 56(3):716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, F. Daniel. 2010. Digital Democracy: The Consequences of Electronic Voting Technology in Brazil. Paper presented at New Faces in Political Methodology III, Penn State Quantitative Social Science Initiative, Pennsylvania State University, May 2010.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel, Imai, Kosuke, King, GaryStuart, Elizabeth. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15(3):199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel, Imai, Kosuke, King, GaryStuart, Elizabeth. 2011. ‘MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference’. Journal of Statistical Software 42(8):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke. 2005. ‘Do Get-Out-the-Vote Calls Reduce Turnout? The Importance of Statistical Methods for Field Experiments’. American Political Science Review 99(2):283–300.Google Scholar
Katz, Gabriel R., Alvarez, Michael, Calvo, Ernesto, Escolar, MarceloPomares, Julia. 2011. ‘Assessing the Impact of Alternative Voting Technologies on Multi-Party Elections: Design Features, Heuristic Processing and Voter Choice’. Political Behavior 33(2):247–270.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke J. 2010. ‘An Overview of rbounds: An R package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data’. Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Kimball, David C.Kropf, Martha. 2008. ‘Voting Technology, Ballot Measures, and Residual Votes’. American Politics Research 36(4):479–509.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Morgan H., Hall, Thad E., Alvarez, R. Michael. 2009. Electoral Context and Voter Confidence: How The Context of an Election Shapes Voter Confidence in the Process. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Working Paper #79, http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/WorkingPaper_79.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2013.Google Scholar
McCoy, Jennifer. 2005. ‘One Act in an Unfinished Drama’. Journal of Democracy 16(1):109–123.Google Scholar
Morgan, Stephen L.Harding, David J.. 2006. ‘Matching Estimators of Causal Effects Prospects and Pitfalls in Theory and Practice’. Sociological Methods & Research 35(1):3–60.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governmen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2002. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomares, Julia. 2012. ‘Inside the Black Ballot Box. Origins and Consequences of Introducing Electronic Voting Methods’. PhD diss., London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Pomares, Julia, Leiras, Marcelo, Tchintian, Carolina, Ramos, Anastasia Peralta. 2011. Cambios en la Forma de Votar. La Experiencia de Salta con el Voto Electrónico. Documentos de Políticas Públicas #94 [Changes in the Manner of Voting. Salta's Experience with Electronic Voting. Public Policy Documents #94]. Centro de Implementación de Políticas Publicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
Riera, AndreuBrown, Paul. 2003. ‘Bringing Confidence to Electronic Voting’. Electronic Journal of e-Government 1(1):14–21.Google Scholar
Rodrigues-Filho, José, Alexander, Cynthia J.Batista, Luciano C.. 2006. ‘E-voting in Brazil—The Risks to Democracy’. In Electronic Voting 2006, edited by. R. Krimmer & R. Grimm, 85–94. Bonn, Germany: Gesellschaft fur Informatik.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1995. Observational Studies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sinclair, D.E. ‘Betsy’Alvarez, R. Michael. 2004. ‘Who Overvotes, Who Undervotes, Using Punchcards? Evidence from Los Angeles County’. Political Research Quarterly 57(1):15–25.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert M.Vonnahme, Greg. 2008. ‘Engaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter Turnout’. Journal of Politics 70(2):487–497.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert M., Vonnahme, Greg, Byrne, Michael D.Wallach, Daniel S.. 2008. ‘Voting Technology, Election Administration and Voter Performance’. Election Law Journal 7(2):123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Charles III. 2009. Election Technology and the Voting Experience in 2008. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Working Paper #71, http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/ElectionTechnology_CStewart_033109.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2013.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles III. 2011. ‘Voting Technologies’. Annual Reviews of Political Science 14:353–378.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark. 1999. ‘Introduction’. In Democracy and Trust, edited by Mark E. Warren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Alvarez et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Alvarez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 439.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Alvarez et al. supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Alvarez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 468.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Alvarez et al. supplementary material

Appendix 3

Download Alvarez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB
Supplementary material: File

Alvarez et al. supplementary material

Appendix 4

Download Alvarez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 150.5 KB