Advertisement

Success in eVoting – Success in eDemocracy? The Estonian Paradox

  • Maarja TootsEmail author
  • Tarmo Kalvet
  • Robert Krimmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9821)

Abstract

Estonia has acquired the reputation of a successful e-voting country, and perhaps justifiably so. It was the first country in the world to enable remote online voting in nationwide elections in 2005 and the share of e-voters has been on a rise ever since, now reaching one-third of all voters. Against this backdrop of a seemingly flourishing e-democracy, we set out to ask if the country’s success in e-voting also implies its success in e-democracy in a broader sense. In a qualitative case study, we compare Estonia’s experience in e-voting with the implementation and outcomes of three e-participation projects to demonstrate that considerable discrepancies exist between the take-up and perceived success of e-voting vis-à-vis other e-democracy instruments. In light of these findings the paper further discusses the factors that are likely to account for these differences and highlights the need to look beyond the success of online voting for a holistic evaluation of the state of e-democracy in a given country.

Keywords

e-Democracy e-Participation e-Voting Estonia Case study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission (OpenGovIntelligence H2020 grant 693849), Estonian Research Council (grants IUT19-13, PUT773) and Tallinn University of Technology Project B42.

References

  1. 1.
    Dahl, R.A.: Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press, New Haven (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Statistics Estonia: IC321: computer and internet users aged 16-74 by place of residence (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United Nations: E-Government survey 2014. E-Government for the future we want (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prosser, A.: eParticipation – did we deliver what we promised? In: Kö, A., Leitner, C., Leitold, H., Prosser, A. (eds.) EDEM 2012 and EGOVIS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7452, pp. 10–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD: Promise and Problems of E-democracy. Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Council of Europe (2009, 11-20): Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on electronic democracy (e-democracy)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karlsson, M.: Democratic legitimacy and recruitment strategies in eParticipation projects. In: Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (eds.) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance, pp. 3–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q. 11, 369–386 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krimmer, R.: The 2016 World-Map of E-Voting Activities, Sulz: E-Voting.CC (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Praxis Center for Policy Studies and Pulse: “Osalusveebi ja valitsuse eelnõude infosüsteemi kasutatavuse analüüs,” Lõpparuanne (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Albury, D.: Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money Manag. 25, 51–56 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartley, J.: Innovation in governance and public services: past and present. Public Money Manag. 25, 27–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Bouckaert, G., Peter, G.B.: Innovative public sector organizations. In: Campell, C., et al. (eds.) Comparative Trends in Public Management, pp. 106–118. Canada School of Public Service, Ottawa (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore, M., Hartley, J.: Innovations in governance. PMR 10, 3–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G.: Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., Tummers, L.: Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Adm. 94, 146–166 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Commission: “Powering European Public Sector Innovation,” Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Innovation Union. European Commission, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., Kofakis, P., Papadopoulos, T.: Emerging barriers in e-government implementation. In: Wimmer, M.A., Chappelet, J.-L., Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J. (eds.) EGOV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6228, pp. 216–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalvet, T.: Innovation: a factor explaining e–government success in Estonia. Electron. Gov. 9, 142–157 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freeman, J., Quirke, S.: Understanding e-democracy: government-led initiatives for democratic reform. JeDEM 5, 141–154 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M.A., Ventzke, S.: Hands-on guideline for e-participation initiatives. In: Janssen, M., Lamersdorf, W., Pries-Heje, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) EGES 2010 and GISP 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 334, pp. 49–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scherer, S., Wimmer, M.A., Schepers, J.: Regional participation model to engage citizens in distant decision-making. In: Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (eds.) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance, pp. 139–155. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hsiao, C.-H., Wang, H.-C., Doong, H.-S.: A study of factors influencing e-government service acceptance intention: a multiple perspective approach. In: Kö, A., Leitner, C., Leitold, H., Prosser, A. (eds.) EDEM 2012 and EGOVIS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7452, pp. 79–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Edelmann, N., Höchtl, J., Sachs, M.: Collaboration for open innovation processes in public administrations. In: Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (eds.) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance, pp. 21–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hindman, M.: The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lidén, G.: Qualities of e-democracy: examples from Sweden. In: Geißel, B., Joas, M. (eds.) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe, pp. 225–248. Budrich, Opladen (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Navarro, C., Font, J.: The biased inclusiveness of local democratic innovations: vehicles or obstacles for political equality? In: Geißel, B., Joas, M. (eds.) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe, pp. 95–122. Opladen, Budrich (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Talpin, J.: When deliberation happens. Evaluating discursive interactions among ordinary citizens in participatory budgeting institutions. In: Geißel, B., Joas, M. (eds.) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe, pp. 73–93. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Held, D.: The transformation of political community: rethinking democracy in the context of globalization. In: Shapiro, I., Hacker-Cordón, C. (eds.) Democracy’s Edges, pp. 84–111. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heindl, P.: Elektronische Demokratie-“Dienstleistungen” des Staates: E-Voting, E-Legislation und E-Participation. In: Prosser, A., Krimmer, R. (eds.) E-Democracy: Technology, Law and Politics, vol. 174, pp. 175–188. OCG Verlag, Vienna (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krimmer, R., Ehringfeld, A., Traxl, M.: Evaluierungsbericht: E-Voting bei den Hochschülerinnen- und Hochschülerschaftswahlen 2009. BMWF, Vienna (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Caarls, S.: E-Voting Handbook: Key Steps in the Implementation of E-Enabled Elections. Council of Europe, Strasbourg (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Council of Europe (2011, 06-13): Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the CoE on Transparency of E-enabled Elections (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krimmer, R.: The evolution of e-voting: why voting technology is used and how it affects democracy, Tallinn (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krimmer, R.: e-Voting.at: Elektronische Demokratie am Beispiel der österreichischen Hochschülerschaftswahlen. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alvarez, R.M., Hall, T.: Point, Click, & Vote. Brookings Press, Washington, D.C. (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Svensson, J., Leenes, R.: E-voting in Europe: divergent democratic practice. Inf. Polity 8, 3–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drechsler, W., Madise, Ü.: Electronic voting in Estonia. In: Kersting, N., Baldersheim, H. (eds.) Electronic Voting and Democracy, pp. 97–108. Palgrave, Basingstoke (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alvarez, R.M., Hall, T.E., Trechsel, A.H.: Internet voting in comparative perspective: the case of Estonia. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 42, 497–505 (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kalvet, T.: Management of technology: the case of e-Voting in Estonia. In: ICCTD 2009, pp. 512–515. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drechsler, W.: (2006, 04-12). Dispatch from the Future, Issue 5 11 2006. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madise, Ü., Martens, T.: E-Voting in Estonia 2005. The first practice of country-wide binding Internet voting in the world. In: Krimmer, R. (ed.) EVOTE2006, pp. 27–35. GI, Bonn (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vinkel, P.: Remote electronic voting in estonia: legality, impact and confidence. Ph.D., Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn (2015)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    OSCE/ODIHR (2011, 04-01): Election Assessment Mission Report on the 6 March 2011 Parliamentary Elections in Estonia. http://www.osce.org/odihr/77557
  47. 47.
    Vinkel, P.: Presentation to the OSCE Human Dimension Committee, Vienna (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Solvak, M., Vassil, K.: E-voting in Estonia: technological diffusion and other developments over ten years (2005–2015). Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies, Tartu (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Glencross, A.: E-participation in the legislative process. eJ. eDemocr. Open Gov. 1, 21–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Postimees: “Eesti e-riigi kuulsamaid lipulaevu kukkus läbi,” Tallinn, 19 June 2004Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rugam-Rebane, E.: Interview on 2015-05-15. Written notes (2015)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    TOM Survey: TID+ website (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simson, K.: Saada parimad ideed valitsusele. Maaleht, 04 June 2008Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hinsberg, H.: Interview on 2015-04-30. Audio record (2015)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hinsberg, H.: Osalusdemokraatia veebi kaudu. Infotehnoloogia avalikus halduses (2007)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gramberger, M.: Citizens as Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. OECD, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Runnel, P., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., Reinsalu, K.: The Estonian Tiger Leap from post-communism to the information society. J. Baltic Stud. 40, 29–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rahvakogu: People’s Assembly. www.kogu.ee/en/activity/peoples-assembly/
  59. 59.
    Hinsberg, H.: Rahvakogu tulemus: võim kaotas, kuid inimesed lähenesid, Mõttehommik (2014). mottehommik.praxis.ee/rahvakogu-tulemus-voim-kaotas-kuid-inimesed-lahenesid/Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kalvet, T., Kaldur, K.: E-hääletamine (e-voting). In: Kalvet, T., Tiits, M., Hinsberg, H. (eds.) Impact Assessment of the Estonian E-government Services. Institute of Baltic Studies & Praxis Center for Policy Studies, Tallinn (2013)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    e-Governance Academy: Eesti valitsusasutuste e-kaasamispraktikate analüüs (2012)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hänni, L.: Interview on 2015-04-02. Written notes (2015)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mahrer, H., Krimmer, R.: Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’. Eur. Inf. Syst. J. 15, 27–42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and GovernanceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations