Advertisement

Support for Online Voting in the United States

  • Ramona S. McNeal
  • Caroline J. Tolbert

Abstract

The timeline representing the policy area of e-voting (Internet voting) in the United States has not been a long one. A generous individual casting his/her ‘net’ far afield may argue that the roots of this policy area may have started back as far as 1992 when presidential candidate Ross Perot proposed the concept of electronic town-hall meetings — suggesting the potential of the Internet for increasing citizen participation in the electoral process. A more conservative and systematic approach might date to the Clinton/Gore presidential administration, which placed a strong emphasis on public policy to bring the nation into the information age. The Clinton/Gore administration spent much of the 1990s promoting the idea of ‘reinventing government’, using technology as well as other administrative reforms to improve government efficiency and citizen participation (see Osborne and Gaebler 1992). During this administration, programmes such as the Technology Opportunities Programme (TOP) under the Department of Commerce and the Community Technology Centre (CTC) initiative and the E-rate administered by the Department of Education were put into place to increase Internet access among American citizens, particularly disadvantaged groups. A purist, however, might start this timeline in January 2000.

Keywords

Political Participation Public Place Presidential Election Voter Turnout Direct Democracy 
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. Alvarez, M. and Hall, T. (2004) Point Click and Vote. Washington, DC,: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, M. and Nagler, J. (2002) ‘The Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation’, Loyola University Law Review, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  3. Bimber, B. (2001) ‘Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level’, Political Research Quarterly, 54(1): 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumler, J. and McQuail, D. (1969) Television and Politics: Its Uses and Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowler, S. and Donovan, T. (2004) Reforming the Republic. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C. J. (eds) (1998) Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. California. Office of the Secretary of the State (2000) California Internet Voting Task Force Report, <http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/ivote/>Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D. E. (1960) The American Voter. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clift, S. (2000) The E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy is Online 2.0, <http://www.e-democracy.org.>Google Scholar
  10. Future of Internet Voting (2000) ‘A Symposium Co-Sponsored by the Brookings Institution and Systems, Inc.’, <http://www.brookings.org/comm/transcripts/20000120.htm>Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, R. (2001) ‘Elections Online: Assessing Internet Voting in Light of the Arizona Democratic Primary’, Political Science Quarterly, 116(4): 561–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Initiative and Referendum Institute (2000) ‘California Initiative Review Report: Analysis of Internet Voting Proposals’, http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Google Scholar
  13. Initiative and Referendum Institute (2002) Washington, DC, ‘Ballot Watch’, <http://www.ballotwatch.org>Google Scholar
  14. Internet Policy Institute (2001) Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda, <http://www.Internetpolicy.org/research/results.html>Google Scholar
  15. Karp, J. and Banducci, S. (2000) ‘Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout’, Political Behavior, 22(3): 223–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, G. (1997) A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Harvard, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Livingston, B. (2001) ‘First Congressionally Mandated Internet Vote Points The Way to Technology of the Year’, InfoWorld, 23(5): 78.Google Scholar
  18. McChesney, R. (1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Policy in Dubious Times. Urbana, Ill. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  19. McLeod, J. and Becker, L. B. (1974) ‘Testing the Validity of Gratification Measures Through Political Effects Analysis’, in J. Blumler and E. Katz (eds), The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Morrow, J. (1999) ‘The Mouse That Voted’, U.S. News and World Report, 126(24): 30.Google Scholar
  21. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J. and Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Range, S.(2004) ‘Internet Voting Wins Praise of Party Leadership’ Lansing State Journal, <http://www.lsj.com/news/local/040208internet_9a.html>Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, D. D. (1989) Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shah, D., Kwak, N. and Holbert, L. (2001) ‘“Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital’, Political Organizations 18: 141–62.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, D. and Tolbert, C. (2004) Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Solop, F. I. (2000) ‘Digital Democracy Comes of Age in Arizona: Participation and Politics in the First Binding Internet Election’. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 31 August–3 September 2000.Google Scholar
  29. Southwell, P. and Burchett, J. (2000a) ‘Does Changing the Rules Change the Players? The Effect of All-Mail Elections on the Composition of the Turnout’, Social Science Quarterly, 82: 72–9.Google Scholar
  30. Southwell. P. and Burchett, J. (2000b) ‘The Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout’, Social Science Quarterly, 82: 72–9.Google Scholar
  31. Storey, T. (2001) ‘In Search of a Perfect Election’, State Legislature, 27(2): 17–18.Google Scholar
  32. Tolbert, C. (1998) ‘Changing the Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policy’, in S. Bowler, T. Donovan and C. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tolbert, C. (2001) ‘Rethinking Lowi’s Constituent Policy: Governance Policy and Direct Democracy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 20(1): 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolbert, C. and McNeal, R. (2003) ‘Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation’, Political Research Quarterly, 56(2): 175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. US Department of Commerce. National Telecommunication and Information Administration (1995) Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America, <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru. html>Google Scholar
  36. US Department of Commerce. National Telecommunication and Information Administration (2002) A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their Use of the Internet, <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf/>Google Scholar
  37. Wallace, B. (2000) ‘Payyourparkingtickets.gov — Coming to a Town Near You’, PC World, 18(6): 70–1.Google Scholar
  38. Wenner, L. A. (1983) ‘Political News on Television: A Reconsideration of Audience Orientation’, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47: 380–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. E. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wolfinger, R. and Rosenstone, S. J. (1980) Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramona S. McNeal
  • Caroline J. Tolbert

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations