eDemocracyBlog.com

The third and final post in this short series looks at the impact of eVoting on turnout.

Estonia's national parliamentary elections in March allowed citizens to vote online.

Manuel Kripp, director of the Austrian Competence Centre for Electronic Voting and Participation, concluded that an additional voting 'channel' does not "solve the democratic turnout problem".

But he added:

"Internet voting can be an assurance to preserve turnout and offer citizens a convenient way of participation.

"The constant increase in internet votes of the last six years shows the demand of citizens to have flexible and easy ways to participate in elections."

Aine Ramonaite of Vilnius University, meanwhile, has looked at whether eVoting would help turnout in nearby Lithuania if it is introduced there.

Her paper, presented at a meeting of the International Political Science Association in 2009, discusses whether young people and Lithuanians currently living abroad (about 10 per cent of the electorate) are likely to use eVoting.

She notes that eVoting is "an attractive technical solution to the problem of increasing mobility of population" but also that it "cannot countervail the losses of electorate caused by deeper problems of party democracy such as diminishing partisan identification [or] political alienation".

Research has suggested the decision to vote is a marginal one with low costs and low benefits for most people, and that therefore small changes in costs or benefits might affect the decision.

Electoral costs include the effort needed to register, information gathering, decision-making and casting the ballot.

eVoting reduces the costs of casting a ballot but does not affect the costs of information-gathering and making a decision, and these costs might be high in a society with low partisan attachment.

Ramonaite notes 18 to 29-year-old voters comprise about 23 per cent of voting population, but more than half do not vote in elections and one third cite 'technical reasons' for this failure to participate.

She suggests that eVoting "could potentially increase voting turnout by about four per cent by stimulating the turnout of the youngest generation" but adds that as about 60 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds who cited technical reasons for not voting said they rarely or never vote in elections an increase in turnout of about 1.5 per cent "seems to be a more realistic estimate".

In addition, eVoting would "reduce the electoral costs of emigrants" by removing the necessity to register at an embassy or consulate. "Persons voting via internet would be able to vote in their constituencies as if they were living in Lithuania if they do not wish to declare the change of their living place."

However, judging the impact of eVoting on turnout amongst emigrants is difficult because of a lack of surveys of their views, but those who voted while living in Lithuania might be more likely to continue taking part.

"If voting turnout of emigrants would increase by 30 percentage points, this would amount to the increase of general electoral turnout in Lithuania by about 3-4 percentage points."

On the importance of voting in polling stations as a social or symbolic occasion, she notes that if voting is taken into the private sphere then social sanctioning "is less efficient or even impossible" and therefore eVoting "might reduce the effectiveness of the voting norm which is proved to be the most important reason of turning out to vote".

She concludes that eVoting "might have a noticeable effect on the voting turnout in Lithuania in the short run but it apparently cannot solve the problem of low and diminishing turnout in general".

"On the one hand, it seems to be an attractive technical solution to the problem of increasing mobility of population in democratic societies. On the other hand, it cannot countervail the losses of electorate caused by deeper problems of party democracy such as diminishing partisan identification, political alienation and increasing instrumental attitude of the young generation towards political institutions."

As I've written previously, I would agree that eVoting is not a solution for deeper political problems. But I don't think most sensible supporters of eVoting would suggest it is.

eVoting is not a panacea for disillusionment, but that isn't a reason to continue forcing those who do vote to do so by out-of-date and inconvenient methods.

As this research suggests, the impact it might have is limited to a few percentage points, and not transformative in any way.

To me, it seems that the impact would look something like this:

Those with a higher commitment to voting would be likely to cast their ballot whether eVoting is available or not, so the impact of eVoting decreases as political commitment increases.

But those groups with a lower likelihood of voting could see participation increase by proportionately slightly more as easier voting removes a barrier that would otherwise have acted as a deterrent.

However, other factors which result in political disillusionment would reduce turnout regardless of the voting mechanisms in use, albeit that eVoting continues to produce a slightly higher turnout.

This could lead on to other questions about the political impact of eVoting.

For example, if the technology appeals to younger voters more than older groups or the ease of voting encourages participation by less affluent groups proportionately more than the wealthy, that might suggest it would tend to favour parties of the left.