Advertisement

Electonic Voting in Sweden: Hare or Tortoise?

  • Jan Olsson
  • Joachim Åström

Abstract

Democracy as well as modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) are two issue-areas that have each been high on the Swedish political agenda for quite some time. Sweden is often described as a good democratic example in terms of having well-informed and interested citizens and a high degree of public participation in elections. In modern times, about 80 per cent of the electorate has participated, which also holds for elections for local self-government institutions (local authorities and county councils). In the latest elections of the 1990s we have witnessed in Sweden a decrease in the number of votes, but not a dramatic change. There is still nearly 80 per cent participation in voting. Despite this there is a great debate going on concerning the state of Swedish democracy, and how to improve it. As in many other countries it has commonly been suggested that the public has become increasingly disenchanted with the traditional institutions of representative government, detached from political parties, and disillusioned with older forms of participatory activity.

Keywords

Technical Equipment Vote Procedure College Election Electronic Vote Swedish Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bieber, C. (2000) ‘Revitalizing the Party System or, Zeitgeist on-line? Virtual Party Headquarters and Virtual Party Branches in Germany’, in P. Ferdinand (ed.), The Internet, Democracy and Democratization. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  2. California Internet Task Force (2000) A Report on the Feasibility of Internet Voting. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Secretary of State for California.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, R. (1999) The Web of Politics. The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dictson, D. and Ray, D. (2000) The modern Democratic Revolution: An Objective Survey of Internet-Based Elections, <http://www.SecurePoll.com>Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, R. (2001) ‘Elections Online: Assessing Internet Voting in Light of the Arizona Democratic Primary’, Political Science Quarterly, 116: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibson, R. and Ward, S. (2000), British Party Activity in Cyberspace: New Media, Same Impact? in R. Gibson and S. Ward (eds), Reinvigorating Democracy? British Politics and the Internet. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Government bill (1972) 105 Proposition med förslag till vallag, m.m.Google Scholar
  8. Government bill (1981/82) 224 Om försöksverksamhet med brevröstning i Förbundsrepubliken Tyskland.Google Scholar
  9. Government bill (1984/85) 119 Om ändring I vallagen, m.m.Google Scholar
  10. Government bill (1996/97) 70 Ny vallag.Google Scholar
  11. Government bill (2001/02) 53 Ändringar i vallagen, m.m.Google Scholar
  12. Government bill (2001/02) 80 Demokrati för det nya seklet.Google Scholar
  13. Grönlund, Å. and Hällgren, M. (2002) Intemetval — succé eller βasko? Försöket vid Umeå kårval. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.Google Scholar
  14. Internet Policy Institute (2001) Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda, <http://www.Internetpolicy.org>Google Scholar
  15. Lindholm, B. (2001) Sammanställning av remissvar på Demokratiutredningen, <http://www.demokratitorget.gov.se>Google Scholar
  16. Lundqvist, L. J. (1980) The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Löfgren, K. (2001) The Political Parties and Democracy in the Information Age. The Cases of Denmark and Sweden. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  18. Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Wordwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsson, A. R. (2001) E-röstning. En lägesbeskrivning. Observatorierapport 35/2001. Stockholm: IT- kommissionen.Google Scholar
  20. Solop, F. I. (2000) ‘Digital Democracy Comes of Age in Arizona: Participation and Politics in the First Binding Internet Election’. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association national conference, Washington, DC. 31 August–3 September, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. SOU (1969) 19 Ny valteknik. Betänkande III av 1965 års valtekniska utredning.Google Scholar
  22. SOU (1971) 72 Maskinell teknik vid de allmänna valen. Betänkande IV av 1965 års valtekniska utredning.Google Scholar
  23. SOU (1980) 45 Översyn av vallagen 2. Delbetänkande av 1978 års vallagskommitté.Google Scholar
  24. SOU (1992) 108 Val, organisation, teknik, ekonomi. Delbetänkande av vallagsutredningen.Google Scholar
  25. SOU (1994) 30 Vallagen. Slutbetänkande av 1993 års vallagskommitté.Google Scholar
  26. SOU (2000) 1 En uthållig demokrati. Slutbetänkande av demokratiutredningen.Google Scholar
  27. SOU (2001) 125 Teknik och administration i valförfarandet.Google Scholar
  28. Statistiska Centralbyrån (2001) IT i hem och företag. En statistisk beskrivning. Örebro: SCB.Google Scholar
  29. Statskontoret (2001) Utvärdering av kårvalet vid Umeå studentkår. Rapport 2001: 26.Google Scholar
  30. Åstrom, J. (2001) ‘Digital Democracy: Ideas, Intentions and Initiatives in Swedish Local Governments’. Paper presented at the ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Grenoble, 6–11 April, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Olsson
  • Joachim Åström

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations